Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Compassionate appointment to legal heirs is generally not applicable or is restricted in Rajasthan High Court case laws. The courts emphasize strict adherence to the applicable schemes and policies governing compassionate appointments, often restricting eligibility to specific categories such as the spouse or immediate family of the deceased employee, and excluding others like married daughters or widowed daughters-in-law unless explicitly permitted ["DARPANARAYAN GOPE vs GRID CO - Orissa"] ["State of Rajasthan VS Sushila Devi W/o Shri Sawarlal - Rajasthan"].
Several judgments highlight that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and is subject to the terms of the scheme in force. For instance, the Rajasthan High Court has distinguished cases where the scheme does not provide for appointment to married daughters or widowed daughters-in-law, citing specific rules and government resolutions that prohibit such claims ["State of Rajasthan VS Sushila Devi W/o Shri Sawarlal - Rajasthan"] ["Sunita Parcha W/o Shri Mangesh Parcha vs State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"] ["Durga Devi Mairda, W/o. Late Shri Basant VS State Of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"].
The courts have also reiterated that schemes and policies for compassionate appointments are to be interpreted strictly as per their terms. Any expansion or deviation, such as granting appointment to legal heirs not covered under the scheme, is generally not permissible. For example, the High Court has rejected claims based on schemes that do not include married daughters or other relatives beyond the immediate family ["UNION OF INDIA vs THE REGISTRAR - Madras"] ["YASHODA SIDAR VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - Chhattisgarh"].
In some cases, the Rajasthan High Court has relied on specific government resolutions and circulars that explicitly prohibit substitution of legal heirs or extend benefits only to certain categories. The courts have held that these directives must be followed strictly and cannot be bypassed by judicial interpretation ["UNION OF INDIA vs THE REGISTRAR - Madras"] ["Durga Devi Mairda, W/o. Late Shri Basant VS State Of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"].
Notably, case law also indicates that the benefit of compassionate appointment is not applicable to casual or temporary employees or in cases where the scheme explicitly excludes such categories. The courts have maintained that the scope of compassionate appointment is limited and cannot be expanded through judicial orders beyond the scheme’s provisions ["DARPANARAYAN GOPE vs GRID CO - Orissa"] ["S. Anitha VS General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Personal Administration Department, Chennai - Madras"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The Rajasthan High Court's case laws consistently affirm that compassionate appointment claims for legal heirs outside the scheme's specified categories are not applicable. The courts stress strict adherence to the terms of the applicable schemes and government resolutions, denying applications from married daughters, widowed daughters-in-law, or other relatives unless explicitly covered. Therefore, the principle that compassionate appointment to legal heirs is not applicable is well-established in Rajasthan High Court jurisprudence, and attempts to extend such benefits beyond the scheme are generally rejected ["DARPANARAYAN GOPE vs GRID CO - Orissa"] ["State of Rajasthan VS Sushila Devi W/o Shri Sawarlal - Rajasthan"].
References:- ["DARPANARAYAN GOPE vs GRID CO - Orissa"]- ["State of Rajasthan VS Sushila Devi W/o Shri Sawarlal - Rajasthan"]- ["Sunita Parcha W/o Shri Mangesh Parcha vs State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"]- ["Durga Devi Mairda, W/o. Late Shri Basant VS State Of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"]- ["UNION OF INDIA vs THE REGISTRAR - Madras"]- ["YASHODA SIDAR VS STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - Chhattisgarh"]
Compassionate appointments serve as a vital lifeline for families left in financial distress after the sudden death of a government servant. However, these are not automatic entitlements but exceptional measures governed by strict rules. A common query arises: Compassionate appointment to the legal heirs are not applicable in Rajasthan. High Court case laws. This blog delves into Rajasthan High Court jurisprudence and Supreme Court interpretations, highlighting why such appointments to legal heirs are typically restricted, time-bound, and non-negotiable without rule compliance. Note: This is general information based on case laws and should not be considered specific legal advice; consult a qualified lawyer for individual cases.
Compassionate appointments aim to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased government servant, not as a vested right or routine inheritance for legal heirs. In Rajasthan, they are regulated primarily by the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (Rules of 1996) and, for High Court staff, the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002 (Rules of 2002).Gopal Singh Chouhan VS Rajasthan High Courh Jodhpur - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 2182
Key eligibility criteria include:- Age Requirement: Applicant must be at least 18 years old at the time of application under Rule 8. No deferral for minors. Gopal Singh Chouhan VS Rajasthan High Courh Jodhpur - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 2182- Time Limit: Application within 90 days of death per Rule 10(3). No provisions for pending applications or late filings. Gopal Singh Chouhan VS Rajasthan High Courh Jodhpur - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 2182- No Relaxation: Rule 30 of Rules of 2002 allows Chief Justice discretion for certain matters but excludes compassionate appointments. Gopal Singh Chouhan VS Rajasthan High Courh Jodhpur - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 2182
Courts emphasize that appointments must align with rules; they cannot direct hires de hors (outside) the rules. This applies across services like Rajasthan Police under analogous rules such as the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants (Dying While in Service) Rules, 1975. CHAKLESH SARSWAT VS GENERAL MANAGER, U. P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ORS. - 2003 0 Supreme(All) 2724CHANDRAWALI DEVI VS STATE BANK OF INDIA - 2004 0 Supreme(All) 790Ajay Kumar Shevdy VS Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Face, Central Railway and - 2003 0 Supreme(All) 2274
In a pivotal case involving a Judicial Assistant's death in 2010, the mother applied for compassionate appointment but withdrew, seeking deferral for her minor son. The Rajasthan High Court rejected it due to the son's minority and no pending provision. The Supreme Court affirmed:- Petitioner ineligible as minor at initial application; no deferral rule exists.- Application exceeded 90-day limit.- Purpose is immediate relief, not claims years later. Gopal Singh Chouhan VS Rajasthan High Courh Jodhpur - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 2182
Decision: Petition dismissed; no entitlement. This underscores that compassionate schemes aren't for legal heirs claiming post-majority. Gopal Singh Chouhan VS Rajasthan High Courh Jodhpur - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 2182
These rulings limit posts to Class III/IV for destitution relief, barring higher roles without rule sanction. CHAKLESH SARSWAT VS GENERAL MANAGER, U. P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ORS. - 2003 0 Supreme(All) 2724CHANDRAWALI DEVI VS STATE BANK OF INDIA - 2004 0 Supreme(All) 790Ajay Kumar Shevdy VS Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Face, Central Railway and - 2003 0 Supreme(All) 2274
Supreme Court jurisprudence applicable to Rajasthan reinforces that compassionate appointments aren't inheritable or substitutable for legal heirs:
No Substitution of Legal Heirs: A Government Resolution dated 20th May 2015 prohibits substituting names in waiting lists. In one case, a mother sought to replace her daughter (who declined) with her son; the court held, This is thus not a simple case of substitution of name of legal heirs... and rejected it, as compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and should be granted only in cases of destitution, with a need for immediate financial assistance. State Of Maharashtra VS Rehana Akbar Shaikh - 2023 Supreme(Bom) 211
Time-Barred Claims: Delayed applications (e.g., 20-23 years post-death) fail; families must prove sudden crisis, not stale claims. No pending for minors. Long delays lead to rejection: Compassionate appointment is an exception and a concession, not a right, and should be made strictly in accordance with the rules. Gopal Singh Chouhan VS Rajasthan High Courh Jodhpur - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 2182S. Ram Kumar VS Director of School Education - 2022 Supreme(Mad) 683
Eligible Dependents Limited: Typically spouse or children; no vague near relatives or major siblings unless rules specify. Subsequent claims (e.g., brother after widow) barred. CHAKLESH SARSWAT VS GENERAL MANAGER, U. P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ORS. - 2003 0 Supreme(All) 2724CHANDRAWALI DEVI VS STATE BANK OF INDIA - 2004 0 Supreme(All) 790Ajay Kumar Shevdy VS Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Face, Central Railway and - 2003 0 Supreme(All) 2274
Financial Need Assessment: Not automatic; evaluate destitution, family income, and earning members. Indigent certificates post-delay irrelevant. S. Ram Kumar VS Director of School Education - 2022 Supreme(Mad) 683
Exclusions: No casual/ad-hoc workers, work-charged staff, or medically incapacitated unless totally unfit. No extension to all legal heirs sequentially: The legal obligation... comes to an end. There is no extension... to offer the compassionate appointment one by one to all the legal heirs. Employers in relation to the Management of Swang Washery of M/s. Central Coalfields Limited VS Their workman Sri Pankaj Kumar, son of Late Sunder Lal Mallah - 2017 Supreme(Jhk) 440
Other cases affirm: Object is mitigating sudden death crisis, not providing one appointment to the legal heirs. A. Sridevi VS Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TANGEDCO) - 2022 Supreme(Mad) 1075 Writs after years dismissed, as schemes violate equality if expanded. S. Ram Kumar VS Director of School Education - 2022 Supreme(Mad) 683
Rajasthan High Court decisions, often reviewed by Supreme Court, defer strictly to rules, rejecting equity pleas for relaxations, deferred minor claims, or post-crisis applications. Directions for higher posts or rule deviations are overturned. Even in warehousing corporation cases, regulations prevail over circulars; no disqualifications like child limits if not in rules. Mukesh Kumar Saini VS Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation - 2023 Supreme(Raj) 1708
In summary, compassionate appointments in Rajasthan, per High Court and Supreme Court, are tightly rule-bound for immediate relief, not a quota for legal heirs. Violations lead to dismissal, as seen in direct High Court staff and police cases. Families should act swiftly and seek professional advice to navigate these nuances. Gopal Singh Chouhan VS Rajasthan High Courh Jodhpur - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 2182CHAKLESH SARSWAT VS GENERAL MANAGER, U. P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ORS. - 2003 0 Supreme(All) 2724CHANDRAWALI DEVI VS STATE BANK OF INDIA - 2004 0 Supreme(All) 790Ajay Kumar Shevdy VS Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Face, Central Railway and - 2003 0 Supreme(All) 2274
This post draws from reported judgments; outcomes may vary by facts. Always verify with current rules.
#CompassionateAppointment #RajasthanHighCourt #LegalHeirs
tress certificate, so as to consider her case for compassionate appointment. ... Consequent ially, the petitioner is not entitled to get any compassionate appointment, nor the quantum of ilitation Assistance Scheme applicable under the scheme. ... appoitment to the wife of the deceased, namely, Draupadi Devi and payment of arrear dues, due to her husband.
Learned counsel also relied upon the decision of the Hon''ble Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur in Priyanka Shrimali Vs. ... The High Court can only act within the permissible jurisdiction of the terms of the scheme. When a married daughter is disentitled to claim compassionate appointment, the claim of the petitioner that she is taking care of the family of the deceased, may not require consideration. ... This decision may not be #HL....
This is thus not a simple case of substitution of name of legal heirs and therefore the judgment in Dnyaneshwar Ramkishan Musane (supra) will have no application to the present case. For the same reasons, the judgment in case of Smt. ... We must, at the outset, refer to Government Resolution dated 20th May 2015 by which a specifc prohibition is imposed on substitution of name of legal heirs in the waiting list of compassionate appoi....
The Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. ... In the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of PinkiVs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ... Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of PinkiVs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2011 (4) RLW 3298 (Raj.) ... In the case of Smt. Nirjara Singhvi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. ......
Another decision in the case of Smt. Sapna vs. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9686/2020 does not support the case of the appellants. ... It is well settled legal position that compassionate appointment is an exception to general Rules. ... He would submit that it was not permissible for the Court to add or reject words. According to him, rightly or wrongly, the Rules do not provide for compassionate#HL_EN....
This Court is also of the view that the parameters of delay are not applicable in the present case because in the case of The State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. ... It is furtther not in dispute that all the family members were on the same wavelength, which prompted them to forward the case of the present appellant for the compassionate appointment and it is not the case where there were multiple clai....
Under the approved scheme of the Government of India, the Scheme of compassionate appointment is inapplicable to the legal heirs of the daily rated employee and it is applicable only to the regular employees. 3. ... In the present case, the scheme of the Government of India for compassionate appointment has been placed before this Court. Clause 2. ... Since the scheme does not provide appointment on compassionate ground in respect o....
It is the case of the petitioners, however, that as per the rules for compassionate appointment prevailing in the KSRTC, it is not only the legal heirs as per the succession laws, but also others, including an unmarried brother of a deceased employee, that fall within the category of persons eligible ... Through a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent it is admitted that, over and above the legal heirs specified under the ....
The object of the scheme is not to provide one appointment to the legal heirs of the deceased employee. It is to mitigate the circumstances arising on account of the sudden death of an employee. ... The present writ petition is filed, seeking implementation of the decree passed by the Civil Court. The decree passed by the Civil Court cannot be executed by filing a writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ... Applying the law ....
This Court finds that the said circular/order dated 13.08.2004 was also not applicable in the present facts of the case, while case of the present appellant was to be decided. ... or covered, whereas, invoking Regulation 35 will not be applicable in the present case, where appointment is to be offered on compassionate ground as the same is governed by Special Regulations of 1983. ... The appellant, while assailing the impugned order....
Based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India judgments, the Hon'ble High Court also decided several writ petitions and the benefit of scheme of compassionate appointment was not extended to the legal heirs of the deceased employee after several years.
It has been held that the Will under which the Trust was allegedly created, has been held to be forged documents and Trust has been held to be non-existent. All the trustees that could be known to the plaintiff were impleaded and it has not been pointed out by the defendants which trustee has not been made party. The case laws cited on behalf of the defendants are not applicable as all the natural heirs were impleaded in the present case.
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned legality of the decision of the respondent-Rajasthan High Court, in rejecting his application seeking appointment on compassionate ground under the provisions of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 ('the Rules of 1996').
The legal obligation of the appellants comes to an end. There is no extension of the legal obligation on the part of these appellants to offer the compassionate appointment one by one to all the legal heirs.”
The aforesaid decisions have been taken into consideration in the case of Smt. Duliya Bai Yadav (supra) referred to above. The Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Smt. Pinki V. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2012(1) WLC (Raj.) 431 has also held that widowed daughter-in-law of the deceased Government servant is entitled to compassionate appointment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
