SUSHILA DEV Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 19/3/2009, whereby the petitioner was declined compassionate appointment by Respondent No.2. Furthermore, the petitioner has sought direction(s) to the respondents for considering her application for compassionate appointment.

(2.) The facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are that the mother-in-law of the petitioner was appointed on the post of a 'Coolie' in the Respondent-Department. However, on 15/7/2007, she died while working in harness with the said department. Immediately thereafter, within a period of 8 days, an application for compassionate appointment was filed by the petitioner's husband i.e. deceased's son, on 23/7/2007. Accordingly, respondent No.2 forwarded the said application for compassionate appointment to Superintendent Engineer, Jaipur for his due consideration. But unfortunately, the petitioner's husband-Sh. Sawar Lal also died on 14/3/2008; leaving the petitioner widowed, with a responsibility of looking after herself as well as her three minor children. Therefore, being an uneducated lady, with no alternative source of employment, the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment on 3/3/2009 as per the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Rules, 1996 (hereinafter 'Rules of 1996-). However, vide letter dtd. 19/3/2009, respondent No.2 declined compassionate appointment to the petitioner on account of the fact that a 'daughter-in-law' did not fall within the ambit of the term 'dependent' as provided under the Rules of 1996.

(3.) In this background, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the legality and validity of the rejection letter dtd. 19/3/2009 and sought directions to the respondents for duly considering her case for compassionate appointment. At this juncture, it would be prudent to note that the present matter is pending since 2011; and in spite of several early hearing requests, it was not heard. Thus, the matter was finally heard today with the consent of both the parties.