Compassionate appointment cannot be granted if a dependent of the deceased government servant is already employed, as per Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment Rules.

JUDGMENT :

1. Laying challenge to communication dated 31.08.2020 as well as decision taken in meetings dated 04.09.2020 and 30.10.2021, whereby compassionate appointment sought by the petitioner in place of her deceased father Late Shri Raju Lal has been denied, on account of the fact that her brother Sandeep already in the service of Municipal Board since 2015, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Facts of the case are not much in dispute. Petitioner’s father Late Shri Raju Lal, who was holding the post of Jamadar in the office of respondent No. 3, unfortunately passed away on 31.01.2020 while he was in service. As per the petitioner, she belongs to a Scheduled Caste Category as well as to marginalized and under privileged section of the society.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that father of the petitioner was the sole bread earner in her family. After death, he left behind him the petitioner, her mother and one sister as well as one brother-Sandeep.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that so far as her brother Shri Sandeep is concerned soon after his marriage in the year 2008, he had started living separately from his father and family. In support of such contention, separate Ration Cards have been produced. Counsel emphasized over the fact that on account of living separately, may be employed with Municipal Board, Bhawanimandi, brother of the petitioner is providing no financial help to the family of the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel has further submitted that on account of sudden death of her father in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner, her mother and sister are striving hard even for daily bread and butter due to abrupt financial crisis crept in the family. Finding no other alternative and source of income, the petitioner submitted an application for seeking compassionate appointment in place of her deceased father, who died while in service of respondent No. 3.

6. Learned counsel has vehemently submitted that without considering the object of compassionate appointment Rules and the pathetic condition of the family, in quite mechanical manner, application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents only on account of the fact that as per record her brother was already employed with Municipal Board, Bhawanimandi.

7. In quite emphatic manner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a beneficial legislation cannot be given a narrow interpretation in order to defeat and frustrate the very object for which such scheme has been framed and has been given shape of statutory Rules. The benevolent intent of the Rules is to provide avenue on the death of bread earner in the family. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that earlier also by applying principle of purposive construction, liberal interpretation has been taken by this Court for the purpose of widening the meaning of “Family” and “Dependents” defined under the provisions of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (in short, Rules of 1996).

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that such beneficial piece of sub-ordinate legislation if allowed to be interpreted in a rigid manner, then it would make the entire legislation redundant and meaningless, therefore, learned counsel has emphasized for interpreting the provision of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 in a harmonized manner, in order to make the Rules more effective and to fulfill the very object for which such Rules were enacted by the Rule making authority.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in Jaswant Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No. 4387/1991); decided on 27.01.1992; Herald Hamilton vs. State of Rajasthan (DBCWP No. 524/1987); Asha Devi Gupta (Smt.) vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No. 7724/2002) decided on 01.11.2004; Neeraj Gurjar & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (SBCW