ANITA DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is that Subhash Chandra, father of petitioner No. 1 and husband of petitioner No. 2 while working as Constable at Excise Police Station, Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu, met with an accident and died on 10/2/2015. At the time of death of Subhash Chandra, the petitioner No. 2 Sahil Choudhary was minor. Therefore, his mother (the petitioner No. 1) submitted an application dtd. 1/10/2015 to the concerned Circle Inspector to protect the right of her minor son for appointment on compassionate ground untill he attains the age of maturity. The said application dtd. 1/10/2015 was forwarded to the Excise Officer, which was replied vide letter dtd. 6/11/2015 informing the petitioner No. 1 that under Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (hereafter 'the Rules of 1996') (as amended in the year 1999) as her son (the petitioner No. 2) would be attaining the age of 18 years on 27/9/2020, the application for his compassionate appointment through proper channel be filed three months thereafter. When the petitioner No. 1 was awaiting the age of maturity of her son, the petitioner No. 2, she received a letter dtd. 30/6/2017 from the respondents stating that in terms of the Notification dtd. 11/9/2002 issued by the Department of Personnel, the application filed on behalf of petitioner No. 2 for his appointment on compassionate ground even prior to attaining the age of majority was not acceptable. In such circumstances, the petitioner No. 1 submitted an application dtd. 5/7/2017 to the respondents for giving herself an appointment on compassionate ground. Vide reply dtd. 2/8/2017 the petitioner No. 1 was informed that her application not being submitted within time i.e. within 90 days of her husband's death as warranted under rule 10(3) of the Rules of 1996, her case for appointment on compassionate ground was not sustainable. Hence this petition.

(2.) Reply to the petition has been filed. It has been submitted that vide Notification dtd. 11/9/2002 Rule 10(3) of the Rules of 1996 was amended and thereby provision for keeping application for compassionate ground pending at the instance of minor children of the deceased employee till they attained the age of majority was excluded. Thus, the petitioner No. 2 who applied for compassionate appointment before attaining the age of 18 years was not entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1996 on attaining the age of majority. So far as application submitted by the petitioner No. 1 for compassionate appointment is concerned, the defence is that it was not submitted within the stipulated time of 90 days as provided for under Rule 10(3) of the Rules of 1996 and therefore rejected. In support of these contentions, Mr. Nikhil Simlote counsel for the respondents has place reliance on the order passed by this Court in the case of Manchha Ram Versus State of Rajasthan and Ors. - SBCWP No. 2773 of 1999; decided on 19/4/2000.

(3.) Heard. Considered.