CHAND BAI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition relates to giving appointment on compassionate grounds under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying while in Service Rules, 1975 (for short the Rules ). Late Shri Panchu Lal Khatik (Chawla) was serving as Class IV employee in Settlement Department of the State Government when he died on September 15, 1994, leaving behind his widow Smt. Chand Bai Petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2, Hazari Lai is brother-in-law of the deceased employee, being real brother of Smt. Chand Bai. After death of her husband, Smt. Chand Bai made an application under Rule 5 to provide her suitable employment in Government service. However, her claim to get employment for herself was rejected on the ground of her being physically handi- handicapped and unable to perform the duties. She, therefore, sponsored/nominated the name of her brother Hazari Lal petitioner No. 2, to provide him Government employment under the Rules by moving an application on May 9, 1995 before the Settlement Officer, Jaipur. When no action was taken on her subsequent request. She gave a notice for demand of justice to the Chief Settlement Commi- ssioner on January 17, 1996. Even after receipt of the notice, when no action was taken, she has approached this Court, alongwith her brother Hazari Lal, by way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking mandamus to provide a suitable employment to petitioner No. 2, who is a close relative of the deceased employee.

(2.) THE respondents, in their return, have taken the plea that widow of the deceased (petitioner No. 1) was not given employment as being medically unfit and unable to discharge the duties. THE claim of petitioner No. 2, to get appointment under the Rules, is denied mainly on the ground that he was never dependent on late Shri Panchu Lal, the deceased government servant. It is also pleaded inter- alia that petitioner should move to the Department of Personnel (D. O. P.) for seeking prior special approval for employment under the Rules.

(3.) AT this stage, I would like to make it clear that in the present petition, I have not examined the Constitutional validity of the proviso referred to above, exten- ding the benefit of providing employment to a close relative of the deceased and whether or not it has any rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Rules. On a pointed query by the Court, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, clearly stated that he does not challenge the Constitutional validity of the proviso. The claim of petitioner No. 2, if examined in light of the aforesaid pro- viso, is sustainable and he cannot be denied employment/appointment on the ground of his not being dependent on the deceased Government servant which is the principal ground taken by respondents to deny him the benefit. Undisputedly, no other member of the family of the deceased employee, is eligible to get benefit of appointment under the Rules. As stated earlier, the deceased employee has left his widow behind him, who has been denied appointment on the ground of her being medically unfit to do the job. It cannot be disputed also that petitioner No. 2 is a close relative of the deceased being his brother-in-law. He has been named by the widow of the deceased for giving appointment under the Rules. Thus, all requisite conditions are fulfilled in the instant case, except approval of the D. O. P. which has to be obtained by the Department on referring the matter to it. In view of this, I am of the confirmed view that as per the Rules of 1975, petitioner No. 2 is entitled to get a suitable employment in the Government service and plea taken by the respondents for not extending him the benefit is not tenable in law. It is the submission of the petitioners that their case to provide appointment to petitioner No. 2 has been kept pending for all these years without processing the same.