SUMER KANWAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission. The husband of the petitioner died during the course of operation "Pawan" in Sri Lanka. Thereafter, the petitioner has applied for grant of compassionate appointment to her unmarried daughter. However, during the course of pendency of application for compassionate appointment, petitioner's daughter got married. In such circumstances, the Collector, Jaipur has rejected the application for compassionate appointment as her case was not covered under Rule 2(c) of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (for short, 'Rules of 1996'). Hence, prayer has been made to consider the case of petitioner's daughter for compassionate appointment by relaxing the provisions of Rules of 1996 as an exceptional case. Further prayer has been made for declaring the non-inclusion of married daughter in the definition of dependants as contained in the Rules of 1996 as invalid.

(2.) Shri M.F. Baig, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the married daughter ought to have been included in the definition of dependants in the Rules of 1996. The exclusion is arbitrary and thus, definition of Rule 2(c) is unconstitutional.

(3.) Definition of "Dependant" is contained in Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996, which is quoted below:-