HUKAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents to grant him compassionate appointment as his father Kheem Singh who was working as Pump Driver expired on 12.04.1999. He has referred to Rajasthan Dependents of Government Servants Dying while in Service Rules, 1996 wherein it is stipulated that employment can be granted to any one of the son/daughter/widow of the deceased Government servant if he/she dies while in service, provided he fulfils certain conditions. The petitioner had submitted application on 04.05.1999 in this regard. Respondent No. 2 had responded thereto vide letter dated 06.12.1999 pointing out certain defects in the application and the petitioner was asked to complete formalities mentioned in the letter. One of the objections raised by the respondents was that the name of the deceased father was mentioned as Kheema Ram while in the certificates of qualification submitted by the petitioner his father's name is Kheem Singh. The petitioner had submitted affidavit in support of the fact indicating therein that the name of his father though mentioned as Kheema Ram in the service book but actually it was Kheem Singh. The Assistant Engineer prepared a factual report dated 18.09.2000 wherein it was stated that Kheema Ram and Kheem Singh is the same person and in proof thereof the certificate of the Tehsildar, Fatehgarh was also enclosed. The petitioner subsequently made several representations to the respondents but no action was taken thereon. This writ petition was admitted for regular hearing vide order of this Court dated 13.5.2004. No reply has been filed by the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents who has put in appearance today prays for time to file reply. The matter has been pending after admission for over a decade and hence the request for time to file reply is declined.

(2.) IT is patent from the perusal of the petition that after removing the defect pointed out by the respondents, the petitioner has made several representations but no action has been taken thereon. It would, therefore, be just and appropriate to dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with rules. The petitioner is at liberty to supplement the representation furnished earlier with a fresh one within a period of one month. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.