The delay in submitting an application for compassionate appointment can render the appointment impermissible under the law.

ORDER :

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and by a suitable writ, order or direction:

(a) that the respondents may be directed to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the suitable post.

(b) Any other appropriate, writ order or direction, which this Hon’ble court thinks fit may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(c) award cost of this writ petition to the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel of the petitioner, are that the petitioner’s father-Narayan Singh, who was working on the post of Constable, Fourth Battalion, RAC, Sri Ganganagar, expired while in service on 30.04.1984. Thereafter, the petitioner on attaining the age of majority filed an application for compassionate appointment on count of death of his father, while in service. The respondents sent the communication dated 12.01.1999 and asking the petitioner to submit the requisite documents. The respondents vide communication dated 24.08.1999 rejected the petitioner’s application on the ground of the limitation.

2.1 Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondents for fresh consideration of the petitioner’s case for grant of compassionate appointment. The respondents vide communication dated 26.06.2015 again asked the petitioner to submit fresh application alongwith requisite documents. The respondents also directed the petitioner to appear for police verification vide communication dated 27.07.2015.

2.2. Thereafter, the respondents vide communication dated 21.11.2016 rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that there was no reason available for relaxing the period for submission of the application seeking compassionate appointment. The petitioner’s mother sent a representation to the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 08.05.2017 in that regard, and the petitioner also sent a notice in the matter of compassionate appointment to the authority concerned.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at an earlier point of time, the then State Government granted relaxation to similarly situated candidates in regard to condition of submitting the application for compassionate ground to the extent of three months, and therefore, the impugned action of the respondents in the present case is violative of the Constitution of India.

3.1. Learned counsel further submits that there is an exception in Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1996’), which provides for grant of relaxation in an exceptional case; in the present case, the petitioner family facing the financial hardship on count of sudden demise of the sole bread earner, thus warrants positive consideration of the petitioner’s application seeking compassionate ground.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submits the amendment notification dated 19.04.1999 on the subject matter was issued, which provides that as per Sub-Rule 3 of the Rule 10 of the Rules of 1996 in case the husband or wife of the deceased does not want compassionate appointment for himself/herself and out of remaining dependants, the eldest child had not attained the age of 18 years, then an information to this effect shall be submitted to the Head of the Office/Department within three months from the date of death of a government servant, and thereafter, the period of three months for submission of the application for compassionate appointment shall commence from the date of acquiring of 18 years of age by the eldest child of dependants.

4.1. It was further submitted that in the present case, the mother (wife of the deceased) of the petitioner filed an application for com