DHARMA HARIJAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the prayer for besetting the impugned order dt. 06.05.2012 (Annex. 6) and for seeking direction against the respondents to consider his case sympathetically for appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner, inter -alia, alleged in the writ petition that his father was in employment of Animal Husbandry Department and while in service he passed away on 16.01.2002. After death of his father, his mother applied for appointment on compassionate grounds and the same was accorded to her but unfortunately she too died in harness on 15.04.2005. The untimely death of mother of petitioner left the petitioner and his sister in distress inasmuch as there was no bread winner in the family. As per version of the petitioner, in such extremely hard situations he submitted an application before the respondents for offering him appointment on compassionate grounds on 30.04.2005. The application submitted by the petitioner was forwarded to the higher authorities and ultimately that application was rejected by the competent authority vide its order dt. 06.05.2005, citing the legal embargo under Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996'). While questioning the order impugned (Annex. 6), the petitioner has averred in the writ petition that the reasons assigned for not providing him appointment on compassionate grounds are not worth any credence inasmuch as two elder brothers who are serving the Central Government are living separately and are not providing any financial assistance to the petitioner as well as his sister. The petitioner has also staked his claim by highlighting the fact that he belongs to privileged class of the society.

(2.) ON behalf of the respondents, reply to the writ petition is submitted and the averments contained in the writ petition are denied. While defending the impugned order, the respondents have averred in the reply that the legal embargo under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 is clear and explicit and as such there is no infirmity much less any legal infirmity in the impugned order.

(3.) BEFORE examining the matter, it is very much desirable to examine the object of providing appointment on compassionate grounds. The object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. Mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and if it is satisfied but for the provisions of compassionate appointment that the family will not be able to meet the crisis, a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. In this view of the matter, compassionate appointment cannot be clamed as a matter of right and it is only an exception carved out to provide some solace to the bereaved family whose bread winner has suddenly passed away. There is no quarrel in the legal position that public employments are to be made strictly in adherence of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. It is with this solemn object the legislation in its wisdom has put an embargo under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996. The complete extract of Rule 5 is reproduced as under: