PRITAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is son of the deceased Government -servant, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus/direction to the respondents to provide him suitable employment on the post of Lower Division Clerk or Store -Munshi or Store -Keeper or any other equivalent post in regular pay -scale as per Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependants of Government -servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules of 1975).

(2.) THERE is no gain -saying that the Rules of 1975 are intended to provide Social Security and to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread -earner of the family. Under the Rules employment is provided to one member of the family on compassionate grounds. Rule 5, therefore, mandates that suitable employment in Government -service, on making an application for this purpose, be given without any delay and that, too, in relaxation normal recruitment rules. In the case of Smt. Sushma Gosein and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. : (1990)ILLJ169SC , the Apex Court of the country has laid down that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds there should not be any delay in the appointments in order to redeem the family in distress. The Court has gone to the extent that if there is no suitable post for appointment, supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant. Inspite of all these, the case of the petitioner has not been considered with such promptitude and in a spirit the Rules have been made.

(3.) BE this as it may. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the case, necessary facts may be given: The petitioner's father, late Shri Himmat Singh, was in service of the respondents as a Driver in Mechanical Division, Public Works Department, Jaipur. He was appointed in the year 1945 and after putting a long service, he expired on May 15, 1994 while in service. Thereafter, petitioner's mother submitted an application in the prescribed proforma, alongwith her affidavit, to provide appointment to her son under the Rules of 1975. The application was submitted on 31.5.1995 to the Assistant Engineer, Mechanical Sub -Division -V Public Works Department, Jaipur. However, it took more than six months to decide the matter and the petitioner came to be appointed as a casual daily -rated labour at the rate of Rs. 22/ - per day vide order dated 1.12.94 issued by the Executive Engineer. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was qualified for appointment to the post of a L.D.C. or/Store -Keeper or Store -Munshi, as he has passed Senior Secondary Examination in 1992 and his appointment as casual daily rate worker is not a suitable employment Under Rule 5. According to him, the daily wages received by him was not sufficient to support him, his old ailing mother and other family members, namely, his real younger brother and sister who are still school going minors. That he, being in great financial stress and having no other means of livelihood, accepted the appointment which was offered to him, but he went on in putting his grievance to the Executive Engineer, Chief Engineer by way of several representations with a request to provide him suitable employment as per Rule 5. When no attention was paid to his representation, he submitted an application to the Secretary, State Legal Aid Board, Jaipur to help him in getting justice. The Secretary, State Legal Aid Board, then, wrote a letter on December 22, 1994 to the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Jaipur, highlighting the grievance and claim of the petitioner with a request to provide him a suitable employment as per his qualifications and eligibility. It was also stated in the letter that in case justice is not met to him, a writ petition shall be filed before this Court for seeking redress. Then, a reminder was sent on 17.1.1995 by the Secretary, but they were not even acknowledged. The petitioner being entitled to get free legal aid, the present petition has been filed by him and the cost of litigation has been borne out by the State Legal Aid Board.