[2026:RJ-JP:8493-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27284/2018 Rakesh Kumar Son Of Late Shri Manak Chand, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of House No. L-8, Near Shyam Kirana Store, Gokul Colony, Borkhera, Kota, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Law And Justice Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Registrar General, High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan, Jodhpur.

3. District And Sessions Judge, Kota Nayapura, Kota, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prateek Kasliwal Ms. Gauri Jasana HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Order

24/02/2026

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 20.03.2018 passed by the respondents whereby application of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment on account of death of his father, deceased employee Manak Chand, has been rejected due to lack of eligibility for compassionate appointment.

2. Brief facts of the case are that father of the petitioner died on 25.04.2015 while working with the respondents, thereafter the petitioner applied for giving him appointment under The Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Rules of 1996’). The application of the petitioner was dismissed by the respondents vide order dated 20.03.2018 due to lack of eligibility. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 20.03.2018.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that father of the petitioner solemnized two marriages and the petitioner is the son born out from the wedlock of second wife of the deceased employee. Counsel further submits that the petitioner and his mother also got succession certificate and in all his documents including the government records, the name of his father has been recorded as Late Shri Manak Chand (deceased employee) and prayed for allowing the writ petition.

4. Counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for claiming the compassionate appointment in view of Rule 10(1) of the Rules of 1996 as the so-called wife of the deceased-employee has not submitted any application for seeking compassionate appointment on behalf of her son i.e. the petitioner and in support of the arguments, counsel relied upon para Nos.3 & 7 of the reply which reads as under:-

“3. That as such, the Petitioner has failed in proving that he is a legitimate child of Manakchand. Nevertheless, even upon assuming without admitting that Manakchand's marriage with Devi Bai was legitimate and that the Petitioner was a legitimate child, still the Application of the Petitioner for Compassionate appointment sought to be dismissed, since as per the Rules of 1996, an Application for Compassionate Appointment must be made by the living spouse of the deceased employee. The living spouse can either nominate himself/herself or any competent member of the Dependent's family for the purpose of Compassionate Appointment. The relevant provision of the Rules of 1996 is reproduced hereunder: other "नि(cid:2)यम 10 (1)

“नि(cid:5)सी सर(cid:5)ारी (cid:5)म(cid:10)चारी (cid:5)ी मृत्यु हो(cid:2)े पर उत्तर जीवी पनि(cid:23) या पत्नी स्वयं (cid:5)ो या नि(cid:5)सी अन्य आनि(cid:30)(cid:23) (cid:5)ो नि(cid:2)युक्ति (cid:5)े नि!ए आवेद(cid:2) (cid:5)रेंगे"

It is pertinent to mention that in view of the aforesaid rule, an Application for Compassionate Appointment should have been was the lawful wife of made by the Petitioner's mother Devi Bai ie. the surviving wife of the Petitioner's deceased father, in the instant case, that too only if it is proved that Devi Bai Manakchand. In that case, vide an application for Compassionate Appointment; the Petitioner's mother could have nominated the Petitioner for Compassionate Appointment in place of h