[2025:RJ-JD:37550-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 802/2024

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Director, Local Fund Audit Department, Vikt Bhawan, A-

Block, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Joint Director (Administration), Directorate Of Local Fund Audit Department, Vikt Bhawan A Block, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. Additional Director, Local Fund Audit Department, Opposite Paota Sabji Mandi, Jodhpur, Rajasthan ----Appellants Versus Surya Veer Singh S/o Shri Gaj Singh Goyal And Late Shri Sharda Goyal, Resident Of House No. 122, Gajsharda, Guljar Nagar A, Near Palmart, Bhadwasiya, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Dr. Praveen Khandelwal, AAG with Ms. Yashvi Khandelwal.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Shishodia, Sr. Adv.

assisted by Mr. Deepesh Birla, Mr. Kunal Upadhyay & Mr. Jaideep Singh Saluja.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Order

21/08/2025

1. The matter concerns a compassionate appointment granted to the present respondent by the appellants-State vide order dated 08.01.2018, which was subsequently cancelled by order dated 19.02.2018.

2. Dr. Khandelwal, learned Additional Advocate General representing the appellants, submits that the respondent’s mother, who was serving as a government employee, unfortunately expired on 01.07.2017, whereas the respondent’s father, who was also in government service at the relevant time, had submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement on 24.06.2017, prior to the demise of respondent’s mother.

2.1 Learned Additional Advocate General further contends that the cancellation of compassionate appointment was lawful and justified, inasmuch as the voluntary retirement of the respondent’s father was accepted w.e.f. 19.09.2017, and consequently, the mandatory condition under the Compassionate Appointment Rules requiring that no immediate family member should be in government service was violated, thereby disqualifying the respondent from such appointment.

3. Per contra, Mr. Shishodia, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent submits that the application for compassionate appointment was duly submitted by the respondent on on 24.10.2017, pursuant to which, the consequential order of appointment was issued on 08.01.2018.

3.1 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the compassionate appointment was granted in accordance with law, and the father's intention to retire was manifestly evident from his voluntary retirement application dated 24.06.2017.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is conscious of the fact that the mandatory condition of close family member being in government service, is put under a parameter at the time of death of the government servant or at the time of employment of the dependent, which clearly reflects that the present application after the voluntary retirement was accepted and the disqualification in Rule 5 was not operating. Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependent of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996, reads as follows:

“Rule 5: Appointment subject to certain conditions-

When a Government servant dies while in service one of his/her dependents may be considered for appointment in government service subject to the condition that employment under these rules shall not be admissible in cases where the spouse or at least one of the sons, unmarried daughter, adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter of the deceased Government servant is already employed on regular basis under the Central/any State Government or Statutory Board, Organized/Corporation owned or controlled wholly or partially by the Central/any State Government at the time of death of the Government servant or at the time of appointment of the Dependent.”

5. This Court is of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has