BRIJ MOHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for compassionate appointment under Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996. ("the Rules of 1996").

(2.) The facts, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are that father of the petitioner (deceased Harlal Singh) was Constable in Rajasthan Police and on 26/1/1991, he was murdered by his wife (petitioner's mother) and the petitioner's maternal grand-parents and therefore, they were charge-sheeted for the offence under Sec. 302 and 328 of IPC. It is stated that on 14/2/1991, mother of the petitioner (Vimla) decided to remarry and she executed an agreement (Ikrarnama) dtd. 14/2/1991 wherein she relinquished all her rights in the movable and immovable properties and service benefits of the deceased-Harlal in the favour of the petitioner. At the time of death of his father, the petitioner was about 13 months old and in 2007, upon attaining the age of majority, the petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment in the respondent-department as per Rule 10 of Rules of 1996. The said application was not accepted and the petitioner was denied appointment on compassionate basis. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's application was rejected on hyper technical ground of mother's signature not being present on the application. It is submitted that the mother of the petitioner was the one who had killed the father of the petitioner and who had relinquished all her rights in the father's property, including that of service benefits. Based on the said agreement, the petitioner even secured a succession certificate from a competent Court of Law vide order dtd. 22/3/2000. Learned counsel contends that in the presence of the agreement (Ikrarnama) dtd. 14/2/1991 and succession certificate dtd. 22/3/2000, the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment should not have been rejected on a technical ground of consent of mother.