CHANDRA DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in brief are that Mohan Singh was a Class-IV employee in the respondent-department. Shri Mohan Singh had two wives namely, Smt. Gowa Devi and Smt. Chandra Devi (petitioner No.1). Shri Jatin Singh (petitioner No.2) is son through second wife i.e. Smt. Chandra Devi. Shri Mohan Singh died while in service on 8/4/2002. Smt. Chandra Devi (petitioner No.1) filed an application seeking compassionate appointment as per the provisions of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1996'). The application was rejected vide order dtd. 7/6/2003, on the ground that she is not legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. The order dtd. 7/6/2003 was challenged by way of filing S.B. C.W. No.5019/2004 (Smt. Chandra Devi v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) before Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. During pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, Smt. Chandra Devi (petitioner No.1) became overage. The writ petition was therefore, withdrawn with the liberty to pursue the matter for compassionate appointment qua the son i.e. Jatin Singh (Petitioner No.2). A representation dtd. 3/5/2017 was submitted by the petitioner No.2 seeking compassionate appointment as per the Rules of 1996. The respondent No.4 vide order dtd. 15/6/2017 rejected the representation on the ground that petitioner No.2, being the son of second wife is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds.

(2.) The controversy involved in the present writ petition has already been settled in a catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi reported in (2019) 14 SCC 646, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

(3.) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar and Anr. v. Union of India reported in (2022) 2 JT 346 while reiterating the above settled proposition of law held that while compassionate appointment is an exception to the consitutional guarantee under Article 16, a policy for compassionate appointment must be consistent with the mandate of Article 14 and 16. That is to say, a policy for compassionate appointment, which has the force of law, must not discriminate on any of the grounds mentioned in Article 16(2), including that of descent. In this regard, descent must be understood to encompass the familial origins of a person. Familial origins include the validity of the marriage of the parents of a claimant of compassionate appointment and the claimants legitimacy as their child.