AJMER VIDYUT VITARAN NIGAM LIMITED Vs. RAMESHWARLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To question correctness of the judgment dated October 01, 2012 passed by learned Single Bench, this appeal is preferred. By the order impugned, learned Single Bench, while accepting the writ petition preferred by the respondent/petitioner, directed the appellants/respondents to provide appointment to the respondent/petitioner on compassionate grounds as per provisions of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996').

(2.) In brief factual matrix of the case is that Shri Ratna Ram, father of the respondent/petitioner, died on 30th May, 1998 while in service of the appellant Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act. After death of Shri Ratna Ram, no member of his family claimed appointment on compassionate grounds as per the Rules of 1996. Suffice to mention that the Rules of 1996 were framed by the Governor of Rajasthan exercising the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Contitution of India. The appellant company adapted the Rules aforesaid to regulate compassionate grounds for its employees.

(3.) The appellant company under its office order dated July 6, 2004 published the decision taken by the Board of Directors on 23rd June, 2004 pertaining to consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds to the eldest son/unmarried daughter, who do not attain the age of 18 years at the time of death of the employee concerned. After publication of the decision aforesaid, the petitioner on 07/12/2009 submitted an application to have appointment on compassionate grounds being a ward of late Shri Ratna Ram. The appellant company under a letter dated 10th August, 2010 rejected the claim made by the respondent/petitioner being made beyond the limitation prescribed to have appointment on compassionate grounds. To challenge the decision aforesaid, the respondent/petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Contitution of India with assertion that denial of appointment on compassionate grounds was erroneous in view of the fact that he could have applied for appointment only on attaining the majority. The appellants/respondents, while contesting the claim, preferred a reply to the writ petition with a specific stand that no application was submitted by the respondent/petitioner or his mother to protect their right, if any, for having appointment on compassionate grounds after attaining the age of 18 years. It was also stated that the respondent/petitioner and his family were not at all in need of employment due to loss of sole bread earner, otherwise his elder sister Ms. Jyoti would have made a request for appointment on compassionate grounds immediately after attaining majority.