SHASHIKANT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question raised, point agitated and the relief sought against in this writ petition is the negation of the equality to the persons similarly situated, by fixings specific date September 20, 1972 in the definition of the term 'deceased Government Servant' in R. 2 (e) of the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants dying while in Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules') through a Notification viz. Department of personnel (A -. II) Notification No. F. 3 (6) Karmik/ka-II/75, dated September 29, 1975 by which the benefit to recruitment to the members of the family of the deceased under the Rules was limited only to the members of the family of the Government servant dying on or after September 2, 1972.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case as disclosed in the writ petition and the reply filed there to, are that petitioner Shashikant's father Manpharlal, a constable in Police Department, posted at Pali, while going in a Jeep of the police Department proceeding in hot pursuit of an opium smuggler, met a fatal accident on January 27, 1968 leaving behind him his widow Smt. Urmila Devi and the petitioner, a child of. four and half years, and another child of three or four months old. THE means of the livelihood of the family "thereafter was a petty amount of Rs. 144/-P. M, by way of family pension. When the petitioner attained the age of majority and passed his Higher Secondary examination, his mother made an application to the Inspector General of Police for providing a job to him on compassionate grounds of the family facing great financial hardship. At the direction of the higher authority the request was sympathetically considered by the Superintendent of Police, Pali and the petitioner was appointed as L. D. C. on probation of two years Vide order dated September 24, 1962 (Annexure-1) meant to be under the Rules. Vide letter dated October 20, 1982 (Annexure-11) the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Head Quarter Jaipur forwarded the applications of five persons including Smt. Urmila Devi, mother of the petitioner seeking appointment under the Rules and requested for action at the higher level. THE services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated June 8, 1983 (Anne-xure-III) on the ground that the candidates regularly selected by the Public Service Commission Rajasthan, Ajmer were available. At the representation of Smt. Urmila Devi against the termination of the services of the petitioner the Deputy Inspector General of Police Head Quarter, Jodhpur wrote a letter dated August 19, 1983 (IV) to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jodbpur Range, Jodhpur, mentioning that the appointment was given to Shashi Kant, being the eldest son of deceased Constable Manohar Lal and that the availability of the regularly selected candidates from Rajasthan Public Service Commission will not affect the services of the petitioner and that in case the post on which Sashi Kant was appointed had been filled up and there may not be any vacancy at Pali, he may be appointed on the vacant post of L. D. C. in Banner District. In reply to the aforesaid letter, the Superintendent of Police, Pali sent the letter dated July 29, 1983 (Annexure-V) to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Head Quarter, Jaipur stating that Manoharlal had expired on January 27, 1968 whereas the Rules were framed in the year 1975 and family members of only those persons dying after the issuance of the circular being entitled for appointment under the Rules, Manoharlal's the son Shashi Kant was not entitled to appointment under the Rules and that there was no vacancy even of L. D. C It was further stated that so far as the appointment on the post of Constable is concerned, the Board has not been constituted and whenever the Board would be constituted his case would be sympathetically considered.

(3.) MR. J. P. Joshi, learned Additional Advocate General controverting these contentions submitted that the Rules are prospective in operation and the Government cannot be obliged to make the Rules effective retrospectively. The entertainability of the writ petition has been challenged on the ground that the case of the] petitioner is not covered by the Rules as they stand and there is no infringement of any legal right of the petitioner which may entitle him to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court.