CWP 2184/2K //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.2184/2000 Raj Kumar Kashyap Versus Director, Primary & Secondary Education, Bikaner & Ors. Date of Order ::: 24/03/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. HS Khandelwal for Mr. MM Ranjan, for petitioner Mr. Vijay Dutt, Dy.Govt.Advocate for respondents Instant petition has been filed seeking appointment under Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (“Rules, 1996”). Petitioner's father was serving in the cadre of Class IV and died on 02/04/96 while in service with the respondents and petitioner being only son, submitted his application on 24/12/96 along with necessary affidavits duly verified by his mother for seeking compassionate appointment. For which he pursued his case but there was no response/final outcome on his representations submitted one after the other and lastly upon service of legal notice dt.22/09/99 (Ann.9), approached this Court by instant petition. After the notice was issued by this Court, respondents have come with the reply and in para 5 averred that petitioner's application duly endorsed to respondent NO.3 was forwarded on 26/03/98 to respondent No.1 for necessary orders CWP 2184/2K //2// with regard to his compassionate appointment but no final outcome was ever communicated to him. But in para 9 it has also been averred that since his application was not submitted within forty five days as provided in R.10 of Rules, 1996; as such his application has not been considered for compassionate appointment. Against aforesaid reply, Counsel for petitioner submits that Rules, 1996 were notified on 31/12/96 but published in Rajasthan Gazette on 25/01/97 which is the date from which Rules, 1996 having been given effect to; and as regards instant petitioner, he submitted his application on 24/12/96, while Rules, 1975 was in force where-under there was no provision prescribing limitation in regard to the application seeking compassionate appointment and that apart, after Rules, 1996 came into force, his application was within 45 days as provided therein; as such what has been averred in para 9 of the reply, is nothing but to deprive him of fair consideration seeking compassionate appointment under Rules, 1996. Counsel for respondent submits that father of petitioner had died way back in April, 1996 and by now more than 11 years have rolled by and he is not facing any financial crisis or crunch now; as such even if his case may fall CWP 2184/2K //3// within purview of Rules, 1996, by passage of time he is not entitled for compassionate appointment. This Court has considered contentions of both the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. As regards factual matrix, they are not in dispute with regard to death of father of the petitioner while in service with the respondents and that his application seeking compassionate appointment was submitted on 24/12/96 after having complied with requisite documents formalities under Rules, 1975 or 1996. As per R.1 of Rules, 1996, it has come into force from the date of its publication and as per note appended thereto, it was published on 25/01/97 and much before Rules, 1996 was given effect to, petitioner had submitted application alongwith requisite affidavits on 24/12/96 seeking compassionate appointment. In considered opinion of this Court, petitioner's application was submitted under Rules, 1975 and once Rules, 1975 stood repealed in view of R.15 of Rules, 1996, his application was required to be considered under Rules, 1996 but the impediment having taken note of by respondents to deny him of his legitimate right of fair consideration for compassionate appointment on a plea of limitation as provided under Rule 10 of Rules, 1996, is of no substance and deserves rejection. CWP 2184/2K //4// Contention made by Counsel for respondents that since 11 years have rolled by and financial crisis has over by now, is without substance for the reason that there is no delay on the part of petitioner, who submitted his application much within reasonable time in December, 1996, itself, and was throughout making representations one after the other by pursuing his case but no final outcome was ever communicated to him and even after service of legal notice, he has approached this Court by instant petition. If the delay has been consumed in such circumstances, atleast pendency of petition before this Court, in no manner can be attributed to the petitioner and he cannot be deprived of his right of fair consideration seeking compassionate appointment under the scheme of Rules, 1996. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed alongwith stay petition. Respondents are directed to consider application of petitioner for seeking compassionate appointment under Rules, 1996 and pass appropriate orders and communicate the same to the petitioner as well within three months. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.4/2184CWP00.doc