IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Vikas Badka S/o Shri Ratan Lal & adopted son of Late Smt. Maina Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 660 of 2016
Decided on : 23-01-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 - Rule 10 (3) - Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Section 8(3) - Compassionate Appointment - Give appointment on a suitable post - Prayed that impugned order may kindly be quashed and set aside and respondents may be directed to give appointment to petitioner on a suitable and appropriate post – Petition has been preferred in year 2016 i.e. after 17 years from date of death - Para 16.
Finding of the Court:
Petition has been preferred in year 2016 i.e. after 17 years from date of death - Lapse of period cannot be termed as ‘delay’ in strict sense, more particularly, owing to efforts being made by him and on his behalf, in intervening period - Petitioner failed to make out any case for issuance of any direction or for any interference by Hon’ble High Court - However, case is distinguished from instant case, as there is no delay on part of petitioner whatsoever - Impugned order is quashed and set aside, with a direction to respondents to consider application of petitioner for compassionate appointment afresh, strictly in accordance with law.
Result: Petition partly allowed.
ORDER :
1. This Civil Writ Petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following reliefs:-
Any other order favourable to the petitioner may also be passed.”
2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that Late Smt. Maina Devi, maternal grandmother of the petitioner, died on 21.05.1999, while she was in service as Principal at Government Senior Secondary School, Sri Ganganagar. And that, after the death of Smt. Maina Devi, the petitioner was receiving family pension, and her service dues were also paid to the petitioner. And that she had adopted the petitioner by way of a registered adoption deed, dated 20.02.1999 (at Annex-1), when he was aged about 8 years; and therefore, being a minor, could not be considered for the grant of compassionate appointment, and hence, ineligible.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the natural mother of the petitioner, Smt. Saroj Devi W/o Ratan Lal, submitted an application, dated 09.06.1999, before the respondent no.2-District Education Officer, requesting therein that since the petitioner was a minor at the time of the death of Smt. Maina Devi, the grant of compassionate appointment, be kept pending till the petitioner attains the age of majority.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the respondent no.2-authority vide the reply, dated 07.08.2022, stated that such claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner cannot be kept pending. And that Smt. Saroj Devi preferred a subsequent application on behalf of the petitioner, stating therein that the petitioner being the adopted and only son of Late Smt. Maina Devi, was her sole surviving heir, and that if his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds could not be kept pending, then she be appointed instead.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner upon attaining the age of majority and possessing the requisite qualifications, preferred an application, dated 05.05.2008, before the respondent no.3, and sought compassionate appointment. And that upon receipt of such application, the respondent no.3 forwarded the same to the respondent no.2; who thereafter, vide letter, dated 28.05.2008, sought certain information from the respondent no.3 pertaining to the aforementioned application. And that, the information was accordingly supplied vide letter dated 26.02.2010.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that the respondent no.2 vide letter, dated 01.10.2010, rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not the adopted son of the Late Smt. Maina Devi in accordance with the law contained in Section 8(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, and that the name of his natural mother was in fact reflected in his mark-sheets, and that he was therefore ineligible under Rule 10 (3) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996.
6.1 That upon receipt of such reply, despite having a valid and registered adoption deed, the petitioner filed a suit before the competent Court on 20.10.2010 and sought a declaration to the effect that he was the adopted son of the Late Smt. Maina Devi in accordance with the law, and sought to substitute the name of Late Smt. Maina Devi in the place of the name of his
In case suitable post is not vacant applicant shall have option either to wait for post applied for or to accepts lower available post.
Compassionate appointment is an exception and a concession, not a right, and should be made strictly in accordance with the rules. Long delays can lead to the rejection of compassionate appointments.
Compassionate appointments must be evaluated with a humanitarian approach, especially for minors at the time of the employee's death, and rigid application of time limits is not appropriate.
The central legal point established is the validity of the adoption and the entitlement of the adopted daughter to compassionate appointment as a dependent of the deceased government servant.
Compassionate appointments should consider actual hardships faced by dependants rather than strict adherence to procedural timelines, promoting social justice and support for indigent families.
The eligibility for compassionate appointment can be established if a family member was employed before the death of the government servant but was living separately without extending help to the fam....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that compassionate appointment claims should not be denied solely on the grounds of delay, especially when the family of the deceased government se....
Compassionate appointments must adhere to strict timelines and cannot be claimed as a right, emphasizing the need for timely applications to address immediate financial crises.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.