Judgment

1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of direction to the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner on account of the death of the petitioner’s father, who was serving as Pump Driver with Respondent No. 3. 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.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Late Shri Arjun Ram, father of the petitioner was working on the substantive post of Pump Driver with Respondent No. 3. However, he expired on 12.12.2012 while in service, leaving behind his family.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner submitted an application to the respondents seeking benefit of appointment on compassionate ground. However, said application of the petitioner has been dismissed by Respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 13.02.2013 on the ground that married daughter does not come in the definition of “dependents” as per the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rules of 1996’). Thereafter, mother of the petitioner, i.e., wife of the deceased employee applied to the respondents for grant of benefit of appointment on compassionate ground on 06.03.2013. The respondents pointed out certain deficiencies in the application of the mother of the petitioner, on which, she assured them to rectify the same vide communication dated 25.08.2015. However, the petitioner came to know that her mother was suffering from cancer and, therefore, she again approached the respondents by way of filing another application for extending benefit of appointment on compassionate ground. Thereafter, the respondents vide communication dated 05.01.2023 informed the petitioner that since she was having more than two children, therefore, appointment on compassionate ground could not be granted to her. In response to above communication, the petitioner submitted an affidavit to the respondents regarding adoption deed dated 09.04.2019, whereby, one child of the petitioner was adopted by her mother and thereby, the petitioner was having only two children. However, vide order dated 16.03.2024, application of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground has been dismissed on the premise that one child of the petitioner which was adopted by her mother cannot be said to be legally adopted and as per the provisions of the Rules of 1996, married daughter does not fall in the category of “dependent”. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing instant writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the respondents in declining benefit of appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner is unjustified, unwarranted and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that when the compassionate appointment rules entitles the petitioner for compassionate appointment for saving the family of deceased employee from starvation, there is no justification in not providing the same to the petitioner, dependent of the deceased employee. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for allowing the writ petition as also issuance of direction to the respondents for grant of appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the material on record.

6. The relevant facts, which are not in dispute, disclose that the deceased employee died in harness on 12.12.2012 several years prior to the filing of the present writ petition. It is an admitted position that earlier application filed by the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground was dismissed way back on 13.02.2013 and, thereafter, in changed circumstances, when the petition