Back
SAMEER JAIN
Brij Mohan @virender @ Brijender – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through Secretary – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for compassionate appointment under Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996. (’the Rules of 1996’).
2. The facts, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are that father of the petitioner (deceased Harlal Singh) was Constable in Rajasthan Police and on 26.01.1991, he was murdered by his wife (petitioner’s mother) and the petitioner’s maternal grand-parents and therefore, they were charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 302 and 328 of IPC. It is stated that on 14.02.1991, mother of the petitioner (Vimla) decided to remarry and she executed an agreement (Ikrarnama) dated 14.02.1991 wherein she relinquished all her rights in the movable and immovable properties and service benefits of the deceased-Harlal in the favour of the petitioner. At the time of death of his father, the petitioner was about 13 months old and in 2007, upon attaining the age of majority, the petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment in the respondent-department as per Rule 10 of Rules of 1996. The said application was not accepted and the petitioner was denie
Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
The delay in submitting an application for compassionate appointment can render the appointment impermissible under the law.
Compassionate appointment is not a right and can only be granted under exceptional circumstances, as per the legal provisions and principles discussed by the court.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
