NEERAJ GURJAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent - Commissioner, Regional Development, Indira Gandhi Nahar Project, Bikaner for considering the case of petitioner No. 1, Neeraj Gurjar S/o late Sh. Om Prakash Gurjar, for appointment on compassionate ground, under the Rules of 1996. Unfolding unfortunate events in the present case are that the deceased Om Prakash Gurjar was working as LDC with the respondent - Department and he unfortunately died while in service on 25.9.2003. He had two sons, Umesh Gurjar, born on 6.8.1985 and Neeraj Gurjar born on 1.12.1986. The respondent - State appointed elder son, Umesh Gurjar as LDC on compassionate ground on 11.12.2003 within a period of 3 months of he death of the deceased Government servant. Om Prakash Gurjar, but as misfortunate will have it, elder son, Umesh Gurjar also died on 27.9.2007 after about 4 years of his service. The petitioner No. 1 Neeraj Gurjar with the consent of his mother, Bhagwati Devi applied again for the such compassionate appointment on 2.11.2007. This time, the respondents rejected his application for compassionate appointment as he could not be taken as 'dependent' of his elder brother Umesh Gurjar and such communication rejecting his case for compassionate appointment is placed on record as Annex. 3 dtd. 9.7.2008. Aggrieved by the same, both the petitioners, younger brother Neeraj Gurjar and the mother, Bhagwati Devi have approached this Court by way of present writ petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the two decisions of coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Asha Devi v. State of Rajasthan, 2005 2 SCT 751 and in the case of Rajiv Gupta v. State of Rajasthan,2008 2 WCL(Raj) 393 and relying upon the relevant previsions of 1996 Rules including the definition of 'dependent' as defined in clause 2(c) of the Rules and Rule 10(2) of the said Rules, he urged that not only the younger brother should be taken as dependent in view of the extended meaning of the said terms given in the definition, but the petitioner Neeraj Gurjar, even with reference to the death of his father Om Prakash Gurjar on 25.9.2003 could be offered this compassionate appointment under the 1996 Rules on an over all and harmonious reading of these provisions and he submitted that the case laws relied upon by him were in the similar circumstances and the Court has directed the respondents to consider the case for appointment of the second dependent in such cases also under the 1996 Rules.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. K.R. Saharan has supported the impugned order on the basis of definition of 'dependent' and has urged that since the brother is not included in the said definition, the respondents cannot be faulted in denying such compassionate appointment to the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent - authorities had duly taken sanction from the State Government in this regard and the Dy. Secretary, CAD vide his letter dtd. 7.6.2008 had clearly stipulated that there is no provision for relaxation in the said Rules of 1996 and consequently, the rejection of the case of the petitioners for compassionate appointment was justified. He however, could not controvert the two judgments of this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner.