CWP 5009/07 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.5009/2007 Ajeet S. Gaur Versus R.S.R.T.C. & Anr. Date of Order ::: 21/10/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Ashok Mishra, for petitioner Mr. OP Sharma, for respondents. Instant petition has been filed by petitioner seeking compassionate appointment, on the ground that his father while serving as Conductor died on 18/11/91 when he was minor. Petitioner's father (Ram S.Gaur) while serving as Conductor in respondent Corporation died in a road accident on 18/11/91 leaving behind his wife (Gajraj Kanwar), two daughters and petitioner who was minor. As alleged, mother of petitioner earlier submitted application on 02/01/1992 seeking compassionate appointment, to which respondent failed to send communication; hence another application was submitted on 16/09/03 while he attained majority and despite certain correspondences made, since no orders were passed; after legal notice being served, petitioner has filed instant petition. Counsel submits that application was initially submitted on 02/01/92 and when respondent Corporation failed to pass orders, as CWP 5009/07 //2// such another application was submitted on 16/09/03 and despite correspondence having taken place, as is evident from documents dt.07/02/04 & dt.15/04/04 (Ann.6 & 7), in such circumstances, denial appointment is in clear violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. In support, Counsel placed reliance upon decisions of Apex Court in S.Khadim Hussain Vs State of Bihar (2006 (9) SCC 195); and of this Court in Kuldeep Kala Vs. State Bank of India (2006(5)WLC (Raj.) 615). Respondents have filed reply to writ petition - in support whereof, documents have been placed on record. Respondents have disputed alleged fact of submitting application earlier on 02/01/92 and as regards application submitted on 16/09/03, it has been averred that application was submitted after 11 years & 8 months; as such can not be considered for compassionate appointment. As regards facts alleged for having earlier submitted application on 02/01/92, there is no convincing evidence or material on record to substantiate such statement of fact referred to by petitioner. That apart, from document dt. 16/09/03 (Ann.R.2) even at initially stage, as per her correspondence, mother of petitioner sought compassionate appointment for her minor CWP 5009/07 //3// son at relevant time and not for herself but she was informed that she submitted application after attaining majority of petitioner. Indisputably father of petitioner died way back on 18/11/91 and ultimate fact is that application seeking appointment of petitioner was submitted for the first time on 16/09/03 after 11 years & 8 months of death of his father. However, compassionate appointment Rules, 1996 have been made to mitigate financial hardship of the grieved family which has lost its bread-winner, as an exception to the provisions of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over sudden crisis. Mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered at any later point of time or the crisis is over. In Umesh Nagpal Vs State of Haryana (1994(4) SCC 138) the Apex Court held grant of compassionate appointment after lapse of reasonable period is impermissible. In instant case, the deceased employee died way back on 18/11/91 and on attaining majority application for consideration of compassionate appointment was submitted after 11 years and 8 months, CWP 5009/07 //4// certainly financial crunch must have been tide over by then and that apart, one cannot claim appointment as a matter of right after a lapse of reasonable period merely because petitioner attained majority, that will not give him a right for compassionate appointment. This court does not find any justification to entertain the petition. Judgments on which Counsel for petitioner placed reliance are of no assistance in the facts of instant case. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.4/5009CW07-2110cmps.doc