BOARD OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RAJENDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the above appeals were filed by the State of Rajasthan against the common judgment dated February 2, 2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, partly allowing the writ petitions filed by the respective respondents. WRIT APPEAL NO. 635/2000

(2.) THE respondent Rajendra filed the Writ Petition No. 4432/98 to declare Rule 10 (3) of the Rules of 1996 to be arbitrary and violative of the provisions of the Constitution and to quash the communication dated 18. 10. 97 and 7/8. 1. 98 and consequently direct the respondents to consider the application of the respondent petitioner for suitable appointment after taking into consideration his qualification in accordance with the Rules with consequential benefits. THE Respondent's father died on 4. 5. 1995. At the time of his death the respondent was about 15 years of age and was student of 8th standard. He passed out the Senior Secondary Examination in 1996. THEreafter he submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground in terms of the proforma appended to the Rules of 1996. THE application was turned down by the 2nd appellate herein on the ground that as per Rule 10 (3) of the Rules of 1996. THE applicant was required to submit the application within 45 days from the date of death of deceased which the respondent failed to submit, his application could not be considered and the same was rejected on 18. 10. 97. THE learned Single Judge after hearing arguments in various connected writ petitions, allowed the writ petitions including the present one in the following terms: "in view of the above discussion, the writ petitions stand disposed of in the following terms: (i) THE dependants of the deceased Government servants who died before promulgation of Rules of 1996 i. e. before January 25, 1997 shall be governed by the Rules of 1975 and the orders issued thereunder. Rules of 1996 shall not be made applicable to such cases. As all the Government servants in the instant writ petitions had died before January 25, 1997 the respondents are directed to decide their cases afresh in view of Rules of 1975 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. (ii) Rules 5 and 10 (3) and (6) of the Rules of 1996 are adjudged valid. But the State Government or authority concerned is expected to take immediate decision on the applications. Time limit of 45 days from the date of receipt of the application may be fixed so as to avoid the allegation of proceeding at a pace unduly slow like a snail walk. If application is received after prescribed period of 45 days and reasonable explanation is afforded for such delay then the Government authority concerned should take recourse to the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in condoning the delay. "

(3.) WRIT Appeal No. 782/2000 has been filed against the order passed in S. B. Civil WRIT Petition No. 5800/98 which was also partly allowed by the learned Single Judge. In this case it is alleged that the father of the respondent died on 11. 10. 1996 while working on the post of Teacher, Government Secondary School, Khawa which is an establishment/institution of the Education Department of the Government of Rajasthan. The family of the deceased government servant consisted of his wife, one married son, two unmarried sons and one daughter (unmarried ). According to the respondent his qualification is Secondary School Examination from Board of Secondary Education in 1996-97. The mother of the respondent submitted an application on 16. 8. 1997 in the office of the appellant No. 2 with a request to consider the application for employment to her son being the dependent of the deceased Government servant. The application was not in prescribed from as such the respondent was asked to submit the same in the prescribed form under the Rules of 1996. After examining the application the same was rejected and a communication dated 3. 1. 98 (Anx. 5) mentioning therein that the application has been submitted after the expiry of 45 days of the death of the deceased government servant which the limitation prescribed under sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1996. The respondent thereafter submitted various applications seeking employment but the same were rejected under the provisions of the Rules. Thereafter the respondent filed the writ petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge alongwith other writ petitions. Being aggrieved, the present special appeal has been filed.