Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over.

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 denied appointment on compassionate basis. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s application was rejected on hyper technical ground of mother’s signature not being present on the application. It is submitted that the mother of the petitioner was the one who had killed the father of the petitioner and who had relinquished all her rights in the father’s property, including that of service benefits. Based on the said agreement, the petitioner even secured a succession certificate from a competent Court of Law vide order dated 22.03.2000. Learned counsel contends that in the presence of the agreement (Ikrarnama) dated 14.02.1991 and succession certificate dated 22.03.2000, the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment should not have been rejected on a technical ground of consent of mother.

4. Learned counsel further submits that this Court had already granted an interim order in the petitioner’s favour. Vide order dated 25.04.2017, this Hon’ble Court had directed that no appointment letter be issued in favour of Respendent No.5, who is the brother of the petitioner.

5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent-State and learned Counsel for the private respondent have objected to the contentions made by the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the respondent-State has raised a preliminary objection qua maintainability of the writ petition, especially in light of the relief claimed in the Writ Petition. It is submitted that father of the petitioner died in the year 1991, Writ Petition was filed in the year 2008 and today we are in 2022 and therefore, at this belated stage, petition for compassionate appointment cannot be entertained. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and Ors. vs. Anusree K.B.: AIR 2022 SC 4766. On merits, learned counsel for the respondent-state argues that as per Rule 10 of Rules of 1996, the application for compassionate appointment has to be made in the prescribed format within a period of 90 days from the date of death of the government servant. In the present case, the application was filed in the year 2007 whereas the government servant died in the year 1991, i.e. after a hopeless delay of approximately 17 years. Further, according to Rule 10 of Rules of 1996, the applicant is required to take consent from the other dependants whereas in the present case, the petitioner and his brother are both fighting over compassionate appointment.

6. Heard the arguments advanced by both sides, scanned the record and considered the judgments cited at Bar.

7. In the present case, it is undisputed that the application for compassionate appointment was only filed by the petition