KUNTHA DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have challenged the order dated 04/7/1996, passed by learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, filed by the appellants. THE husband of the appellant, Smt. Kuntha Devi, was serving in the Irrigation Department and died while in service on 24/12/1976. THE case of the appellant is that at the time of death of her husband, they had only one daughter who was married. After death of her husband, the real brother of appellant No. 1 started living with her and thereafter, on 5/6/1991, the appellant No. 1 adopted her real brother as her son. Further, the case of the appellant is that at the time of the death of her husband her brother, now adopted son, was a minor and after registering the adoption deed on 5/6/1991 her adopted son applied for the employ- ment under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules of 1975' ). However, when the application was not entertained by the department, they filed a writ petition before this Court on 1/2/1996 and the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 4. 7. 1996.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Davendra Raghav, vehemently argued that appellant No. 1 having legally adopted her younger brother as son and there being no other member in the family, her adopted son is entitled for employment under the `rules of 1975'. Counsel for the appellant has relied on rule 5 and rule 2-F of the `rules of 1975'. Counsel for the appellants submits that the definition of family includes adopted son. Further, the provision to the definition of family provides that the widow of the deceased may nominate any close relative if no such member of the family is found eligible for getting benefit under these Rules. Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that at the time of death of husband of the appellant No. 1, the adopted son was minor and, as such, after attaining the age of majority in the year 1991, he is entitled for employment under rule 5 of the `rules of 1975'.

(3.) THE Apex Court further relied on observations made in the case of Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar (3), decided on November 13, 1995 and observed as un- der:- "the very object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employees who die in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. Since the death occurred way back in 1971, in which year, the appellant was four years old, it cannot be said that he is entitled to be appointed after he attained majority long thereafter. In other words, if that contention is accepted, it amounts to another mode of recruitment of the dependent of a deceased Government servant which cannot be encouraged, dehors the recrui- tment rules. "