Rajasthan High Court
Honble DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
Manchha Ram - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Others - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2773 of 1999
Decided On : April 19, 2000
(2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioners father died in harness on 23.4.94 while working as Class IV employee in the Co-operative Department and as the petitioner was minor at that time, after passing Middle Standard Examination in the month of April, 1997, he applied for employment on compassionate ground under the said Rules of 1996 by submitting an application on 19.5.97. However, after correspondence at different levels in the Department, the application was rejected vide order dated 25.3.98 (Annex. 4) on the ground that he was below 18 years of age and was not eligible for appointment. The petition has been filed on the ground that under certain Circulars issued by the Competent Authority, a person is eligible for employment at the age of 16 years in special circumstances and petitioner could not have been denied employment on this ground.
(3). When this Court raised the issue: whether compassionate employment can be claimed at such a belated stage, it was pointed out that the Old Rules, i.e. the Rajasthan Recruitment of the Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Dying while in Service Rules, 1975 (for short, ``the Rules, 1975), provided that a dependant of deceased employee may apply for employment on compassionate ground after attaining the majority and initially the Rules, 1996 did not contain any such analogous provision but the said Rules of 1996 stood amended by the State Government vide Notification dated 19.4.99 (Annex.9). Para 4 of the said Notification provides the amendment of rule 10 of the Rules, 1996, by which in Sub-rule (3) of rule 10, the period for submitting the application has been fixed as three months instead of forty-five days. It also provides for furnishing the details of income of other family members from all sources. It further reads as under:-
``In case the husband or wife, as the case may be, is not willing for employment and the eldest of the dependants has not attained the age of 18 years, the information to this effect may be furnished to the Head of the Department within the period of three months from the date of the death of the employee and the limitation of applying for service of three months shall be counted from the date of attaining the age of 18 years.
(4). Thus, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner by Mr. Vijay Bishnoi that by the aforesaid amendment, a dependant has a right to get employment on compassionate ground whenever he attains the age of eighteen years, provided the information regarding his minority has been furnished within the period of three months from the date of death of the employee and, thus, there can be no embargo/inhibition in getting compassionate employment even at such a belated stage.
(5). This Court suo moto issued notice to the State as well as to the learned Advocate General on 6.8.99 as why this proviso, which enables a dependant to claim employment on compassionate ground at any belated stage after attaining the majority, should not be struck down as the same might be violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The learned Advocate General appeared in pursuance of the said notice and submitted that this Court has competence to examine the validity of the said provision suo moto and this view stands fortified by the judgment of this Court (Jaipur Bench) in Ghanshyam Avasthi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (1).
(6). There can be no quarrel to the legal proposition that mere pendency of an application does not create any legal right in favour of the applicant, (Vide Union of India & Ors. vs. Indian Charge Chrome & Anr. (2). Matter requires to be decided as per the law prevailing on the date of decision making. Moreso, even if the law stood ame
3. Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad vs. Jan Mohammed Usmanbhai & Anr. (AIR 1986 SC 1205)
5. Smt. Parayankandiyal Eravath Kanapravan Kalliani Amma vs. K. Devi (AIR 1996 SC 1963)
6. Dr. K.R. Lakshmanan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1996 SC 1153)
7. New Delhi Municipal Committee vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (AIR 1997 SC 2847)
9. Smt. Sushma Gosain & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors (AIR 1989 SC 1976)
10. Smt. Phoolwati vs. Union of India & Ors. (AIR 1991 SC 469)
13. State of Bihar vs. Samsuz Zoha (AIR 1996 SC 1961)
16. Babi Sayeeda vs. State of Bihar (AIR 1996 SC 1936)
24. Administrator, Municipal Corporation
28. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (AIR 1991 SC 686)
29. S.P. Jain vs. Krishna Mohan Gupta (AIR 1987 SC 222)
40. State of Haryana vs. Piara Singh (AIR 1992 SC 2130)
43. Satnam Singh vs. Punjab & Haryana High Court (AIR 1997 SC 983)
44. State Level Committee vs. M/s. Morgardshammar Indian Ltd. (AIR 1996 SC 524)
45. Puri Municipal Council vs. Indian Tabacco Co. Ltd. (AIR 1996 SC 534)
2. Union of India & Ors. vs. Indian Charge Chrome & Anr. (1999(7) SCC 314).–Relied on.
4. K. Anjaiah & Ors. vs. K. Chandraiah & Anr (1998(3) SCC 218).–Followed.
8. Anukul Chandra Pradhan vs. Union of India & Ors. (1997(6) SCC 1)
11. Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (1994(4) SCC 138)
12. Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar (1996 (1) SCC 301)
14. Himachal Road Transport Corporation vs. Dinesh Kumar (1996 (4) SCC 560)
15. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. vs. A. Radhika Thirumalai (1996 (6) SCC 394)
18. Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Naresh Tanwar & Anr (1996 (8) SCC 23)
19. Director of Education (Secondary) & Anr vs. Pushpendra Kumar & Ors. (1998 (5) SCC 192)
22. West Bengal State Electricity Board vs. Sameer Kumar Sarkar (1999 (7) SCC 672)
25. Colour-Chem. Ltd. vs. A.L. Alaspurkar (1998 (3) SCC 192)
26. Durga Oil Company & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (1998 (6) SCC 299)
27. Forest Ranga Officer vs. P. Mohd. Ali (1993 (Suppl.) 3 SCC 627)
30. Daily Pratap vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (1998 (8) SCC 90)
31. Dinkar Anna Patil vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors (1999 (1) SCC 354)
32. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. S.D. College
34. Vaijanath & Ors. vs. Guramma & Anr (1999 (1) SCC 292)
35. Employees State Insurance Corporation vs. M.M. Suri & Associates (P) Ltd.
37. Cochin Dock Labour Board vs. Leenamma Samuel and Others (1998 (9) SCC 87)
38. U.P.R.T.C. vs. Pukhraj Singh and others (1999 (1) SCC 190)
39. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. P. Pochaiah & Anr. (1999 (1) SCC 191)
41. Prabhat Kumar Sharma vs. State of U.P. (1996 (10) SCC 62)
23. Narendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (RLW 1998(1) (Raj.) 666)
42. Thomas Chandy vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation (1998(2) RLW Raj. 1356)
46. Ravindra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (1997(1) RLW Raj 139)
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.