Compassionate appointments are exceptions to recruitment norms and require strict adherence to eligibility criteria, which were not satisfied in this case.

JUDGMENT

1. Assistance of advocate for petitioner is not available, as advocates have taken a call to abstain from the judicial work and not to appear before Courts right from 20.02.2023 onwards, therefore, this Court has no option except to hear the petitioner, present in person and to consider the writ petition as per the material available on record on merits.

2. By way of instant writ petition, challenge has been laid by the petitioner to orders dated 31.12.2018, 06.03.2019 and 18.02.2022 whereby and whereunder prayer of petitioner to accord compassionate appointment to her son Bharat Sharma in place of her husband-late Shri Kailash Narayan Sharma who was posted as Head Constable and passed away on 07.05.2017 during the course of his service, has been declined and therefore the petitioner has made a prayer to quash and set aside impugned orders and direct respondents to consider her application for grant of compassionate appointment to her son namely Bharat Sharma.

3. From facts as pleaded in the writ petition, it transpires that the petitioner's husband Shri Kailash Narayan Sharma passed away on 07.05.2017 and at that point of time he was employed as Head Constable in the office of Superintendent of Police, Tonk. The deceased employee survived his wife aged about 52 years (present petitioner) and four sons namely; (1) Ram Nrayan Sharma aged about 33 years, (2) Laxman Narayan Sharma aged about 31 years, (3) Bharat Sharma aged about 28 years and (4) Shatrughan Sharma aged about 26 years. On 19.06.2017, the petitioner moved an application in prescribed format under provisions of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules 1996 (hereinafter referred to 'the Rules of 1996') before respondent No.2 and stated therein that her three sons except Bharat Sharma lived separately with their respective family and do not render any financial assistance to petitioner; she herself is not able to do job and therefore, she requested that compassionate appointment in place of her deceased husband may be accorded to her son namely Bharat Sharma.

4. Perusal of application dated 19.06.2017 filed by the petitioner indicates that no details about employment and income of other three sons of petitioner namely; Ram Nrayan Sharma, Laxman Narayan Sharma and Shatrughan Sharma were given out and in respect of her son Bharat Sharma, it was indicated that he has qualification of M.A. & B.Ed. The application is accompanied with the independent affidavit of Ram Narayan Sharama, Laxman Narayan Sharma and Shatrughan Sharma, who have deposed no objection in according the compassionate appointment to their brother, Bharat Sharma. It has been noticed in the affidavit as well, there is no indication about their nature of employment. It appears that factual report was called for in respect of status of petitioner and her sons and inquiry was held. In the inquiry, statement of petitioner as well as her four sons and other documents pertaining to immovable property of petitioner as well as about employment of her sons were recorded/collected. The report of inquiry dated 02.06.2018 is available on record as Annexure-4. On inquiry the factual matrix revealed that one son of petitioner namely Laxman Naryan Sharma is posted as Constable in Rajasthan Police, and another son Shatrughan Sharma is posted as Assistant Manager in Union Bank of India, Zonal Office, Jaipur; the petitioner has rental income and it was opined that the economic condition of petitioner and her son was not found pathetic.

5. On revelation of facts that two sons of deceased employee are already in government job, therefore, under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 or the Circular dated 31.05.2016 issued by the Department of Personnel, Govt. of Rajasthan, respondent No.2 declined to accord compassionate appointment to Bharat Sharma (son of deceased employee), however, the compassionate appointment was offered to the petitioner vide its letter/order dated 13.12.2018