[2026:RJ-JP:2044]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4127/2014

1. Shri Gopal Saran S/o Late Shri Teja Ram, aged 20 years and Smt. Shobha Devi, R/o Village Nagdi, Pachayat Samiti Mundawa, Distt. Nagaur (Raj.)

2. Shobha Devi W/o Late Shri Teja Ram, aged 45 years, R/o Village Nagdi, Pachayat Samiti Mundawa, Distt. Nagaur (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

1. The Managing Director, RSRTC, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur

2. Chief Manager, RSRTC, Nagaur Depot, Nagaur.

----Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Pragya Seth Advocate.

For Respondents : Mr. Vikram Singh Shekhawat Advocate.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Judgment

16/01/2026

1. Matter has come up on Application No. 1/2025 for early disposal of the writ petition.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, writ petition was heard finally.

3. The present writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of direction to the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to Petitioner No. 1 on account of the death of the petitioner’s father, who was serving as an employee under the respondent-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. The petitioner contends that the family suffered financial hardship upon the demise of the deceased employee and that the denial of compassionate appointment is arbitrary and unjust.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Late Shri Teja Ram, father of Petitioner No. 1 was working on the substantive post of Conductor in respondent-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. However, he was dismissed from service by the respondents with effect from 27.07.1991. Thereafter, the respondents approached the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Industrial Tribunal') by way of filing application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking approval of dismissal of father of Petitioner No. 1 from service. The Industrial Tribunal vide its order dated 24.12.1991 rejected the application of the respondents. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents challenged order dated 24.12.1991 passed by the Industrial Tribunal by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 257/1993 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 23.08.1996 and while granting liberty to the respondent- Coporation to produce relevant documents before the Industrial Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of that judgment, the matter was remanded back to the Industrial Tribunal for its consideration and passing a fresh order. Upon remand, the Industrial Tribunal vide its order dated 12.11.1997 allowed the application filed by the respondents and approved dismissal of father of Petitioner No. 1 from service.

5. It is further submitted that Father of Petitioner No. 1, feeling aggrieved, challenged the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal before this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6573/1997, which came to be allowed by this Court vide order dated 05.03.2010 and orders dated 12.11.1997, 27.07.1991 and 27.12.1997 were quashed and set aside. Widow/legal representatives of Late Shri Teja Ram were held entitled to receive all consequential benefits. Thereafter, the respondents challenged the aforesaid order by way of filing D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 688/2011, however, the same was dismissed by Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 25.05.2011.

6. Learned counsel submitted that in the intervening period during which the aforesaid litigations were going on, father of Petitioner No. 1 died on 21.01.2003, leaving behind his widow (Petitioner No.2) and son (Petitioner No. 1) who, at that time, was 9 years old only. However, soon after attaining the age of majority on 25.06.2012, Petitioner No. 1 moved an application before the respondents on 07.07.2012 seeking appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Conductor, but no heed was paid by the respondents on the application of Petitioner No.1. Thereafter, Petitioner No. 1 submitted a reminder on 24.02.2014 to