Back
2012 Supreme(Raj) 873
(Rajasthan High Court)
Jaipur Bench
Mehfooj Ahmed Vs. Jaipur Nagar Nigam & Ors. (Jain-I, J.)
HON'BLE ARUN MISHRA, CJ.
HON'BLE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I, J.
Mehfooj Ahmed
Versus
Jaipur Nagar Nigam & Ors.
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1441 of 2003, decided on 13.08.2012
Rajendra Soni, for Petitioner;
Dr. P.C. Jain, for Respondents
Headnote:Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Govt. Servants Dying while in Service Rules, 1975, Rule 10; Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Govt. Servants Rules, 1996, Rule 10(3) — Application of Rules whether new or old ones? — Petitioner's father died on 22.11.1992 while in service — Petitioner was minor at that time — On attaining majority filed application for compassionate appointment on 26.6.1998 — At the time of death, the Rules of 1975 and at the time of filing application the Rules of 1996 were applicable — Held — The scheme in force, when the application is actually considered, and not the scheme that was in force earlier when the application was made, will be applicable — Rules of 1996 will apply in this case — Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future — It cannot be claimed or offered after lapse of time when the crisis is over. (Paras 14 to 18)
Writ petition dismissed.
jktLFkku lsok ds nkSjku e`rd ljdkjh lsodksa ds vkfJrksa dh fu;qfDr fu;e] 1975] fu;e 10( jktLFkku e`rd jkT; ljdkj ds lsodksa ds vkfJrksa dks vuqdEik fu;qfDr fu;e] 1996] fu;e 10¼3½ & u;s ;k iqjkus fu;eksa dk ykxw gksuk & lsok ds nkSjku izkFkhZ ds firk dk 22-11-1992 dks fu/ku gqvk & rRle; izkFkhZ vO;Ld Fkk & O;Ld gksus ij 26-6-1998 dks vuqdEik fu;qfDr gsrq vkosnu fd;k & e`R;q ds nkSjku 1975 ds fu;e o vkosnu is'k djrs le; 1996 fu;e ykxw Fks & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & og ;kstuk tks vkosnu ij ;FkkFkZ esa fopkj djrs le; izpfyr gksrh gS] ogh ykxw gksxh] u fd og ;kstuk tks vkosnu is'k djrs le; iwoZ esa izpfyr Fkh & bl ekeys esa 1996 ds fu;e ykxw gksaxs & vuqdEik fu;qfDr dksbZ fufgr vf/kdkj ugha gS] ftls Hkfo"; esa fdlh Hkh le; iz;qDr fd;k tk lds & bldk le; chr tkus o ladV ls Åcj tkus ij u rks nkok fd;k tk ldrk gS vkSj u gh izLrko fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼in la[;k 14 ls 18½
;kfpdk [kkfjt dhA
2. Petitioner initially preferred a writ petition before Single Bench with the prayer that respondents be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Class IV servant on compassionate ground in place of late Shri Ballu Khan with all consequential benefits.
3. The matter was listed before Single Bench on 22nd November, 2011. Learned Single Judge was of the view that issue involved in the present matter is substantially the issue, which is involved in the case of Dharmendra Singh Dhabhai vs. State of Raj. & ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5389/1998), which has been sent for disposal to Division Bench, as constitutional validity of Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 is under challenge, therefore, directed the Registry to place this matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice to take a decision as to whether it can also be decided by Division Bench. The matter was thereafter placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice, who passed an order to list the matter before Division Bench.
4. Briefly stated, the facts of the writ petition are that late Shri Ballu Khan, father of petitioner was initially appointed as a Bisti in Nagar Nigam, Jaipur on 10.10.1966 and he died on 22nd November, 1992 while in service. The petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father, as date of birth of petitioner was only 23rd August, 1980. He became major on 23rd August, 1998. He filed an application for compassionate appointment on 26th June, 1998. Petitioner also came to know that respondents have given appointment to one Abdul Vahid – respondent No.4 in place of late Shri Ballu Khan, whereas Abdul Vahid was not the legal heir of late Shri Ballu Khan. When petitioner made a complaint about it, then respondents cancelled the appointment order of respondent No.4 vide order dated 1st July, 2002. However, appointment was not given to petitioner. Therefore, a notice of demand of justice dated 16th December, 2002 was served upon the respondents, but no heed was given to it. Thereafter, the present writ petition was filed on 7th February, 2003.
5. Respondent No.4 Abdul Vahid filed his reply to writ petition, wherein he stated that he was adopted son of late Shri Ballu Khan. Therefore, he was rightly given appointment in his place. It was also stated that Smt. Waheedan mother of respondent No.4 filed an affidavit in the office of respondents, wherein she desired that in place of her husband, her son may be appointed. He also pleaded that against order dated 1st July, 2002, whereby his services have been terminated, he has filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4663/2002.
6. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner's father was an employee of respondent Nagar Nigam, Jaipur and he died while in service on 22nd November, 1992. The petitioner being the son of late Shri Ballu Khan was entitled for compassionate appointment, but on the date of death of Ballu Khan, he was only minor and soon after attaining majority, he filed an application before respondents on 26th June, 1998 for compassionate appointment, but he was not given appointment. Therefore, he served a notice of demand of justice and filed a writ petition.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Indra Singh Solanki & Ors. (2009(1) WLC 548) held that the dependents of deceased government servant, who died before promulgation of Rules of 1996 i.e. before January 25, 1997 shall be governed by the Rules of 1975 and the orders issued thereunder. Rules of 1996 shall not be made applicable to such cases. He, therefore, submitted that under the Rules of 1975, there was no limitation prescribed for filing the application, rather there was a provision for making an application for compassionate appointment soon after attaining majority. Therefore, respo
