SURESH SIRVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this intra-court appeal, the petitioner-appellant seeks to question the order dated 07.02.2012 as passed in CWP No.340/2012 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has found baseless the submissions of the appellant in regard to his claim for appointment on compassionate basis and has dismissed the writ petition.

(2.) IN brief, the relevant background aspects of the matter are that the father of the appellant, late Shri Kalu Ram, who was working as Class IV employee in Government Higher Secondary School, Tilwasni, allegedly went missing on 16.11.1987. It appears from the material placed on record that on 20.02.1994, the mother of the appellant lodged one report (Annex.1) stating the fact of her husband, i.e., the father of the appellant, missing since 16.11.1987. This report was essentially made with reference to an order issued by the Government for grant of family pension to the dependents of the missing employees. It further appears from the material on record that the authorities took up the proceedings on the report so made and ultimately, the SHO, Police Station, Bilara, Jodhpur informed the District Education Officer, Jodhpur on 25.05.2003 (Annex.4) that the missing employee, i.e., the father of the appellant, was not found. Another certificate to that effect is said to have been issued by the Gram Panchayat, Khariya Mithapur, Bilara (Annex.5). It is also borne out from the record that ultimately, the Government proceeded to sanction family pension in regard to the family of the missing employee.

(3.) IN the order dated 25.07.2011 (Annex.11) as passed in the said writ petition (No.6480/2011), a learned Single Judge of this Court considered the claim made by the appellant and referred to the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 ('the Rules of 1996') and also to the principles that the compassionate appointments are, by their very nature, exceptional and are resorted to as a matter of concession essentially in order to provide basic support to the family to meet with the crises. The learned Single Judge, however, took note of the submission of the appellant that the representation made by him on 17.07.2010 had not been considered and on the basis of these submissions, directed the authorities concerned to consider the representation and to decide the same with a speaking order.