Kanta Devi vs State Of Rajasthan

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.7.2019, passed by the District Education Officer, whereby petitioner's request for grant of compassionate appointment to her son has been turned down.

The facts appertain are that petitioner's husband, late Sh. Kundanmal Dabriya, passed away on 1.4.2019, while he was working as Teacher in the respondent department.

On the death of petitioner's husband, the petitioner submitted an application for affording appointment on compassionate ground under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependent of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1996') to her son, namely, Mahesh Kumar, inter alia, stating that she is indisposed and not in a position to serve.

Petitioner's such request has been rejected by the respondents, vide order dated 31.7.2019, as her another son, namely, Harish Chandra is already working as Teacher Grade-III Level-I in Government Secondary School, Munrawata Mundara.

Challenging the order aforesaid, learned counsel contended that the petitioner's other son, namely, Harish Chandra is living separately and is not supporting the family. He submitted that as a consequence, the petitioner and her son have been rendered in penury.

This Court posed a question to Mr. Deora as to how the petitioner and/or her other son Mahesh Kumar can claim appointment under the Rules, particularly in the teeth of the definition of "dependent" given in clause (c) of Rule 2 of the Rules of 1996, learned counsel cited a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Gulshan Chopra Vs. State of Rajsthan & Ors. reported in 1990 WLN (UC) 249 and submitted that petitioner's writ petition also deserves to be allowed.

This Court is at pains to record that learned counsel has cited a judgment which is based upon erstwhile Rules of 1975, under which rules, the compassionate appointment was to be given on the basis of definition of term "family", whereas in the present Rules of 1996, a dependent can claim appointment on compassionate ground if he falls within the ambit of term "dependent".

The definition of term "family" given under the Rules of 1975 is entirely different than the definition of term "dependent" given under the Rules of 1996. Hence, the parity claimed by learned counsel is wholly unsustainable.

The present writ petition is, thus dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.