SUMAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the respondents to consider and provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner on a suitable post in accordance with the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1996").

(2.) The petitioner is the daughter-in-law of late Heera Lal who died while in service on 15.12.2005. The late Heera Lal was survived by his wife, daughter-in-law (the present petitioner-Smt. Suman Sharma), and grandson. He also left behind him one daughter-Mrs. Lalita. The petitioner being the daughter-in-law filed an application under the Rules of 1996 for appointment in the Department on compassionate ground. However, vide communication dated 18.8.2006, the respondents rejected the application of the petitioner filed under the Rules of 1996 on the ground that "daughter-in-law" does not fall under the category of dependents mentioned under the Rule 2(C) of the Rules of 1996. Thereafter, the petitioner accepted her fate and did not challenge the order rejecting her application. Meanwhile, one S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9177/2010 (Smt. Pinki v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) came to be filed before this Court, in which the petitioner i.e. Smt. Pinki was widowed daughter-in-law. The writ petition was allowed on 12.09.2011 holding that "widowed daughter-in-law" is a dependent of a government servant as defined under Rule 2(C) of the Rules of 1996 and the decision of the government in refusing appointment on the said ground was set aside. In view of the said changed position of law, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondents on 26.8.2014. However, the said representation was rejected by the Deputy Director, Ayurved Department, Ajmer vide letter dated 2.9.2014 on the ground that daughter-in-law does not fall under the definition of dependents given under Rule 2(C) of the Rules of 1996.

(3.) A perusal of the above facts show that the application of the petitioner was dismissed way back on 18.8.2006. The present writ petition has been filed almost after 10 years. While explaining the delay, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it was only when the petitioner came to know about the judgment rendered by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9177/2010 (Smt. Pinki v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), decided on 12.09.2011 that she once again represented to the Department on 26.8.2014. Since the same has been dismissed only now on 2.9.2014, there is no delay. Further, the second argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the said representation has been rejected on the same ground without taking into consideration the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Smt. Pinki and that since her condition has deteriorated further on account of lack of finances, her case should be considered sympathetically while ignoring the delay.