Seema Rani vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

The petitioner â€" a divorcee, applied for appointment under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependent of Deceased Government

Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1996â€), after death of her elder brother Shri Ramesh Kumar, who was serving as a

Teacher with the respondents.

Petitioner’s such request has been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 02.08.2019, interalia observing that she is not covered under the

ambit of expression ‘dependent’ defined under Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996.

Challenging the order dated 02.08.2019, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that after divorce from her husband, the petitioner was living with

her elder brother Shri Ramesh Kumar and was totally dependent upon him and, as such, she being a dependent of Shri Ramesh Kumar- her brother, is

entitled to be appointed under the Rules of 1996.

During the course of submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment dated 26.08.2013 rendered by this Court in Kumari

Saraswati Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12539/2012) and claimed that on the basis of principles enunciated in the

case of Kumari Saraswati (supra), the petitioner deserves an appointment under the Rules of 1996.

A person is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground under the Rules of 1996, if he/she falls within the ambit of expression

‘dependent’ defined under Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996, which reads thus:-

Definitions.-

(a) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

(b) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

(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 on the deceased Government servant at the time of his/her

death;â€​

In the case Hari Ram Vishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No.43/2019), a Division Bench of this Court (of which I

was a member) vide order dated 15.04.2019 held as under:-

“4. A perusal of the judgment reveals that the challenge to the vires of Rule 2 (c) has been dealt with by this court in detail and while relying upon

the decision of the Supreme Court, it is categorically held that the definition of the ‘dependent’ as provided under Rule 2 (c) cannot be given

expanded meaning so as to include therein any member of the family of deceased Government servant, converting the appointment on compassionate

ground into the appointment by succession frustrating the spirit of the provisions of the Rules of 1996 which would tend towards arbitrariness and falls

foul of Article 14 and 16of the Constitution of India.

Coming to the contention regarding the scheme for compassionate appointment in other State providing for inclusion of the brother and sister of the

deceased unmarried Government servant within the definition of ‘dependent family member’, suffice it to say that a different definition of the

dependent provided under different schemes of the different States or the Central Government, cannot be a ground to declare the definition

of‘dependent’ provided under the Rules of 1996 as ultra vires Article14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is pertinent to note that before

coming into force of the Rules of 1996, the appointment of dependent of the Government servant died while in service, in the State of Rajasthan, was

governed by Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Died While in Service Rules,1975 wherein there was a provision

incorporated that in case of no member of the family as defined under the Rules, which included wife or husband, sons and unmarried or widowed

daughters and son and daughter adopted according to the provision of the law by the deceased Government servant, is available for getting benefit

under the Rules, the benefit under the Rules may be extended to any other close relative of the deceased to be named by the widow or the guardian of

the children of the deceased with the specific approval of the Department of Personnel. However, no such provision is incorporated in the Rules of

1996, which makes the intention of the rule making authority clear and thus, there is absolutely no reason as to why the expanded meaning should be

given by this court to the definition of ‘dependent family member’ set out in Rule 2 (c) of the Rules of 1996. Moreover, this court has already

concluded that the petitioner herein, having his own family and source of income, in no manner could be considered to be wholly dependent on the

deceased Government servant, who had entered into service of the State only a few months back before his death and thus, even otherwise, he is not

entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground under the Rules of 1996.

In view of the discussion hereinabove, the review petition is devoid of any merit, it is hereby dismissed.â€​

So far as facts of the present case are concerned, petitioner being sister of the Government servant, cannot claim parity on the basis of principles

enunciated by this Court in the case of Kumari Saraswati(supra); if the Division Bench judgment of Hari Ram Vishnoi (supra) is taken into account.

This Court does not find any substance in the present writ petition, for which it is dismissed.

Stay petition also stands dismissed.