Praveen Soni vs Rupendra Soni and Others

Jaishree Thakur, J.—The present appeal under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules has been filed against the order dated 2.7.2015 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10945/2009.

Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the father of the present appellant and respondent No. 1 was employed as Office Assistant in the District Industries Centre Bhilwara, who passed away on 25.1.2009 while still in service. At the time of death, the deceased Shri Shyam Lal Soni left behind two daughters, one elder son by the name of Praveen Soni, the present appellant and the younger son Rupendra Soni, the respondent-writ petitioner. The elder daughter was already married and was residing with her husband at Beawar, whereas unmarried daughter Miss Seema Soni was residing with Rupendra Soni, the writ petitioner. The appellant Praveen Soni had acquired graduation degree in Engineering and had worked at various places at Indore up till the death of Shri Shyam Lal Soni. After the death of Shri Shyam Lal Soni, both the sons of the deceased claimed compassionate appointment in place of their father. In the application filed by Rupendra Soni, the writ petitioner claimed that he was wholly dependent on his father and had no independent source of income. In the said application, it was mentioned that the petitioner''s unmarried sister, who was fully dependent upon the deceased had consented for giving him compassionate appointment in place of their father. The application also narrated that Praveen Soni, the elder brother was qualified as an engineer, was married and living separately and thus was not dependent upon the deceased at the time of his death. The petitioner prayed for appointment on the post of a driver as he was holding a valid driving license or any Class IV appointment. On the other hand, the appellant-respondent Praveen Soni also moved an application claiming appointment on compassionate basis in place of his father to the post of Inspector (Weights and Measures). While seeking appointment, the appellant-respondent filled a Proforma specifically mentioning that he had no source of income and other dependents had gave consent for giving him compassionate appointment in place of deceased. He also submitted an affidavit in support of his application seeking compassionate appointment. Since two applications had been received by the General Manager of the District Industries Centre, a letter was issued on 16.3.2009 to both the appellant-respondent and respondent-petitioner informing them that only one person could be provided compassionate appointment and the matter should be decided amongst themselves and the decision to be communicated to the department as to who should be preferred for compassionate appointment.

On receipt of letter dated 16.3.2009, the respondent-petitioner submitted a detailed representation claiming preferential consideration for appointment specifically mentioning that the appellant-respondent was living separately from their father and having his own ration card and was not dependent on Shri Shyam Lal Soni, as he has been employed at Madhya Pradesh. Various documents were provided along with the representation showing that Praveen Soni, appellant herein had been serving in various private concerns at Madhya Pradesh. The State came to pass an order, whereby the appellant herein was offered appointment on the post of Inspector (Weights and Measures). Aggrieved against this action, the writ petition came to be filed by the younger son Rupendra Soni assailing the validity of the order dated 6.8.2009 by which compassionate appointment was offered to Praveen Soni.

The matter was heard and a detailed judgment came to be delivered by the learned Single Bench who came to the conclusion that the offer of appointment to Praveen Soni was illegal and arbitrary since the appellant herein has resorted to unfair means to obtain an appointment and the same had been offered to him in total contravention of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1996"). The learned Single Bench allowed the writ petition while imposing a cost of Rs. 50,000/- upon the appellant-respondent. Aggrieved against the order dated 2.7.2015 by which the appointment offered by the State to the appellant-respondent No. 5 was set aside, the present appeal has been filed.

Mr. P.P. Choudhary, Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Kuldeep Mathur and Mr. Ankur Mathur Counsels have assailed the judgment dated 2.7.2015 on the ground that the said judgment has been passed without appreciating the Rules of 1996. It has been vehemently argued that the appellant was dependent on his father late Shri Shyam Lal Soni on the date his father expired, i.e., 25.1.2009 since he had resigned his job on 7.1.2009 from a private firm in order to look after his ailing father. It was further contended that on the date his father died and at the time of filing his application, he did not have any source of income while his brother, the respondent -writ petitioner herein was earning money by driving a car and could not be said to be dependent upon their late father. It was further argued that the learned Single Judge had wrongly come to the conclusion that a fraud had been played in order to seek appointment. The learned Senior Counsel has laid great emphasis on the word "Dependent" as given in the Rules of 1996 stating that it requires to be interpreted.

Mr. Mahesh Bora, Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Nishant Bora Counsel has, on the other hand, submitted that under no circumstances, the appellant could be held to be dependent upon their late father as for the past five years he had been residing separately and earning while working at Madhya Pradesh. It is further argued that the learned Single Judge had rightly come to the conclusion that a fraud had been played upon the authorities in obtaining the appointment to the post of Inspector (Weights and Measures) in the Department of Industries.

We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

The word "Dependent" has been defined in the Rules of 1996 which reads as under:-

"2(c) "Dependent" means a spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life time and who were wholly dependent (emphasis supplied) on the deceased Government servant at the time of his/her death."

The paramount purpose of offering compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1996 to grant appointment on compassionate grounds to a dependent family member of a Government servant dying in harness, to relieve the family of the Government servant concerned from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. Term dependent has been defined in the Oxford dictionary to means as "A person who relies on another, especially a family member, for financial support". Under the Rules of 1996 The term ''Dependent'' has been defined to mean a spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life time and who were wholly dependent on the deceased Government Servant at the time of his/her death. The term "wholly dependent" can be safely read to mean such person who has no other source of income or was looking towards the deceased for sustenance/survivals.

The question that needs to be determined in the present appeal is whether a person who is well educated, having graduate in Engineering and was earning a livelihood, resigns from his job a few days prior to the death of the Government servant, can claim to be a wholly dependent upon the deceased in order to seek compassionate appointment, vis-a-vis, a person who is, admittedly, not educated and is only 8th pass person with no job opportunities and without a job in hand?

The term "Dependent" and "wholly dependent" have to be looked at and understood in the context of scheme of the Rules of 1996. In the present case, the appellant was residing separately from his father for the past five years and maintaining his own house-hold. This fact is not in dispute. He resigned from a private concerned on 9.1.2009, two weeks prior to the death of his father, who was terminally ill. A perusal of the documents annexed on record shows that the appellant-respondent sought to be relieved so that he could look after his father who was suffering from cancer and take up the responsibility for looking after his family. The documents annexed with the application form and the affidavit clearly specified that the appellant had obtained the consent of his family members. Curiously enough, both the application and the affidavit in support of the Proforma do not mention anywhere that the appellant is dependent upon his father. Having lived separately for five years while maintaining his own establishment, it cannot be said that the appellant was wholly dependent upon his father even though he might not have been holding a job on the exact date of death of his father. The period of unemployment was only for a period of two weeks and that too on account of giving up a job voluntarily. Whereas, the respondent-petitioner in his affidavit and application and the subsequent representations had submitted that he was not qualified and had only passed 8th class examination and was having a valid driving license. The respondent-petitioner had also submitted that other dependent unmarried sister has given her consent for giving him employment.

It becomes incumbent upon the authorities to consider with extreme caution while ascertaining the economic distress of the members of the family of the Government servant so that the facility of appointment on compassionate ground is not circumvented and misused. This is in view of the fact that under rule 5(2) the authorities may terminate the appointment so offered in case the appointee does not maintain the dependents of the deceased or neglects them despite the undertaking given. The object is to alleviate Economic Distress. Herein, a job was offered to the appellant respondent merely on account of being the elder son without ascertaining the economic need and the dependency which is against the scheme of the Rules of 1996. Thus, we are of the view that, having lived separately and maintained own establishment and family for the past five years, merely on account of not being employed on the date of the death of his father (though was employed with a private concern two weeks prior thereto), it could be held that the appellant-respondent was wholly dependent upon his deceased father.

The conduct of the appellant is also not above board, as has been correctly noticed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant-respondent filed the affidavit submitting that he had obtained consent of all dependents of his late father who had given their consent to him for getting compassionate appointment, which is admittedly not a correct fact. The consent of Kamla Soni, aged 67 years, the widowed sister of the deceased could not be deemed as consent, since she does not fall into the definition of a dependent. Moreover, in none of the documents presented before the authorities, the appellant has submitted that he was wholly dependent upon his late father.

With this, we find that there is no merit in this appeal and the learned Single Judge rightly held that the appointment offered on compassionate ground to the appellant-respondent is de hors the Rules of 1996 and has rightly set aside the same. We find no infirmity in the impugned judgment and the same is affirmed. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.