NARENDRA KUMAR PAREEK Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition raises a question of importance which relates to giving appointment in public services on compassionate ground on death of a Government servant while in service. The question has assumed importance as instances of obtaining employment on the basis of fake claims are increasing.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the question involved in the petition, requisite facts may be given. One Champa Lal, a Male Compounder in Government Amrit Kaur Hospital, Beawar, died on September 15, 1971 while he was in service. After more than 20 years of his death, his widow Smt. Rameshwari Devi applied to provide employment to the petitioner under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant (Dying while in Service) Rules, 1975 (for short the Rules of 1975 ). The entitlement of the petitioner to get appointment was based on the ground of his being adopted by Smt. Rameshwari Devi in the year 1980 as disclosed in the adoption deed executed on March 13, 1992. Subsequently, the claim was also based on the ground of his being a close relative of the deceased Champa Lal, though the relationship was not disclosed. The entitlement of the petitioner to get employment was examined by the State Government and ultimately the prayer was rejected mainly on the ground of delay, vide communication dated June 21, 1993 (Annex. 7 ).

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, seriously contended that petitioner's entitlement to get appointment has been wrongly denied on the ground of delay. For this, the learned counsel stressed that no limitation is prescribed under the Rules of 1975 and the provision contained in the Rules about its non applicability in the case of Government servant dying prior to September 2, 1972 was deleted in the year 1991 after judgment of this Court in Shashi Kant's case RLW 1989 1 709. It was also contended that petitioner's claim has been declined without application of mind as disclosed by the order rejecting the claim in which it has been mentioned that appointment was being sought by the petitioner for being the son-inlaw of the deceased. On the other hand, learned Addl. Government Advocate contended that in addition to inordinate delay in moving the application for appointment the petitioner's entitlement is not sustainable on merit also, as he is not entitled to get employment under the Rules of 1975.