Family pension is a subsisting statutory right and must be disbursed promptly, while compassionate appointments require timely applications to be considered valid.

ORDER :

1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court, seeking directions for the grant of family pension to Petitioner No.2 along with all consequential arrears and interest, and for quashing the orders dated 12.08.2011 and 26.12.2016 passed by the Additional Director (Administration), Primary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. The petition also seeks compassionate appointment for Petitioner No.1, consequent to the untimely demise of Shri Mishri Lal, father of Petitioner No.1 and husband of Petitioner No.2.

2.1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 completed the Secondary Examination in 1998 and the Senior Secondary Examination in 2001 from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer (Annexures-1 & 2). He belongs to the Meghwal community, classified as Scheduled Caste, as certified by the Tehsildar, Marwar Junction, District Pali (Annexure-3), and is a domiciliary of Village Dhundhla, Tehsil Marwar Junction, District Pali (Annexure-4). Petitioner No.2 holds a valid Aadhaar card issued by the Government of India (Annexure-5).

2.2. The deceased government employee, Shri Mishri Lal, was appointed as Teacher Grade III at Government Primary School, Chenda, Panchayat Samiti Rohat, District Pali, on 23.08.1980, and subsequently served at Government Upper Primary School, Novi, Panchayat Samiti Sumerpur, District Pali until his death on 11.05.1984 (Annexures-6 to 8). Petitioner No.1 was only four years old at the time of his father’s demise.

2.3. Petitioner No.1 completed his B.A. degree in 2005 from M.D.S. University, Ajmer (Annexure-9), and applied for compassionate appointment on 30.01.2005. The initial application could not be processed due to procedural deficiencies. Following communication from the District Education Officer regarding such deficiencies (Annexure-13), the petitioners submitted complete documents on 13.10.2014 (Annexure-12).

2.4. The respondents rejected the petitioners’ application for compassionate appointment by orders dated 12.08.2011 and 26.12.2016 (Annexures-15 & 16), citing short service of the deceased and delayed submission of the application. The petitioners also seek release of family pension, a recurring entitlement, as held by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 , wherein it was recognized that the cause of action for family pension persists until statutory benefits are granted.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they have no independent source of income and are facing severe financial hardship, having been entirely dependent on the salary of the deceased employee. The untimely demise of Shri Mishri Lal imposed the entire burden of family maintenance on the petitioners, who are incapable of sustaining themselves independently. Counsel emphasized that compassionate appointment is designed to provide financial succor and social protection to bereaved families, and that the petitioners’ economic condition is demonstrably insufficient to subsist without such intervention. It was further submitted that the deceased had been continuously in service until his death, thereby entitling Petitioner No.2 to family pension and Petitioner No.1 to compassionate appointment as a measure of social justice. Counsel urged that no other efficacious or speedy remedy was available, making invocation of this Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 both necessary and appropriate. Accordingly, it was prayed that the Court may direct the respondents to grant family pension wit