Compassionate appointments must adhere to the eligibility criteria existing at the time of the employee's death, and retrospective application of new rules is not permissible.

Judgment :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. The present Special Appeal has been preferred by the appellants (respondents in the writ petition) laying a challenge to the order dated 03.07.2014 passed by learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4539/2014 (Mukesh Kumar Berwa vs Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.), whereby the writ petition was disposed of, while giving liberty to the respondent (writ petitioner) to file representation, and directing the appellants to consider his case for compassionate appointment, within one month from the date of receipt of such representation, in terms of the orders, as referred in the impugned order.

2. The factual background, as presented by the learned Counsel for the appellants, is that the respondent was the son of the Late Shri Uma Shankar Berwa, who passed away on 17.02.2011, while serving as Helper Grade II with the appellants, at Shahpura. The respondent submitted an application before the Secretary, AVVN Ltd., praying for according compassionate appointment in the Department, in accordance with Rajasthan Compassionate Appointments of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules , 1996 (in short, ‘Rules of 1996’). However, the appellants had considered and rejected the respondent's application for compassionate appointment on 13.05.2014, citing the reason that the respondent had more than two children after the cut-off date of 01.06.2002, thus, violative of the eligibility criteria as prescribed, for the purpose in question, in the notification No.7(1)DOP/A-II/95/Pt.-II dated 24.02.2011 issued by the Government of Rajasthan, which had been duly adopted by the appellant-department vide Order no.AVVNL/CAO(R&C)/AAO (Rule)/F-25/OO/D-2432 dated 05.09.2011.

2.1. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed the aforementioned writ petition, which came to be disposed of vide the impugned order dated 03.07.2014, as mentioned above.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants (respondents in the writ petition) submitted that the impugned order was passed ex parte, against the appellants, without even affording the appellants an opportunity to show cause as to why the writ petition is not maintainable.

3.1. It was further contended that the appellants, in support of their stand, mainly relied on the notification dated 24.02.2011 issued by the Government of Rajasthan, which, as per them, duly addresses the aspect of 'non-eligibility' of candidates with more than two children born on or after 01.06.2002, for the purpose of appointments as well as promotions. Consequently, the rejection of the respondent's application for compassionate appointment by the appellants was made, while making due adherence to the said notification, and thus, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Furthermore, as per learned counsel, the said notification, as reflected in the adoption order dated 05.09.2011, has been made applicable prospectively.

3.2. It was also submitted that in the present case, the respondent's application was submitted on 06.03.2012, which was significantly after the adoption of the notification dated 24.02.2011, by the appellant-department vide order dated 05.09.2011. Thus, the respondent is not entitled for compassionate appointment, as claimed by him.

3.3. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that the validity of the notification dated 24.02.2011 has not been questioned by the respondent in the writ petition, which was disposed of vide the impugned order. Rather, it challenges the rejection of the application seeking compassionate appointment on the ground of the respondent having more than 2 children on or after 01.06.2002. Furthermore, the action of the appellant- department in rejecting the respondent's application for compassionate appointment was in full compliance with the notification of the Government of Rajasthan and the right of the employer to modify its scheme of employment with respect to appointment, including compassionate appointment.

3.4. In suppo