CW 4445/01 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4445/01 Smt. Santosh Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 09/04/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. A.L. Verma, for petitioner Mr. Vijay Dutt, Dy.G.A., for State *** Instant petition has been filed by widow of deceased Hari Ram Meena, who while serving on daily wages basis in the office of respondents, died on 6th November, 1991, has approached this court with folded hands that she may be considered for compassionate appointment after the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying while in Service Rules, 1975 [“Rules, 1975”], which was in vogue at the relevant point of time being repealed under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Service Rules, 1996 [“Rules, 1996”]. Petitioner's husband Late Shri Hari Ram Meena was appointed on daily wages basis in the office of respondents on 1st August, 1986. This fact is evident from document Ann.1 dated 20th December, 1990. He was engaged @Rs.22/- per day while working in the office of respondents her husband died on 6th November, 1991, has worked for more than 5 years. Immediately after his death, she submitted application for seeking compassionate CW 4445/01 [2] appointment at the relevant point of time Rules of 1975 was in vogue. When no relief was granted to her, she approached this court by filing C.W. No.3371/92 in which respondents have filed reply and took a very unusual stand before the court that her husband was not in employment on 6th November, 1991 this is the date on which her husband died. Since there was no material came on record and his continuous working in the office of respondents was disputed by them in the reply, this court disposed of the petition preferred by her on 24th July, 1996 with the direction that she will make representation to the respondents, who while examining their record will pass appropriate orders. It appears that after decision was made on representation, but there was no communication to her, she approached this court with the same grievance for consideration of her candidature for grant of compassionate appointment. After notices were served of the instant petition, respondents have filed reply along with which document Ann.R/1 dated 21st June, 2001 has been placed on record disposing of her representation in which it was observed that on the date of his death i.e. 6th November, 1991 he was not in employment and at a later stage in 1992 when the seniority list was prepared of such employees who were working on workcharge basis he was not on roll as such his name has not been disclosed in muster rolls and by later document Ann.R/2 dated 27th July, 2001, she was further informed that so far as Rules of 1975 is concerned, it was made applicable on workcharge CW 4445/01 [3] employees w.e.f. 7/9/95 and her husband died much before it in November, 1991. As such, she is not entitled to get the benefit under the rules for the purpose of grant of compassionate appointment. Counsel for petitioner submits that under Rule 2(e) of the Rules, 1975 all such government servants who died while in service on or after 2nd day of September, 1972 were considered to be deceased government servants and after the same being repealed, applications already submitted have to be considered under the Rules, 1996 which came into force in December, 1996 and since her husband was in employment at the relevant point of time and had worked atleast for more than 5 years and she being his widow, is entitled to seek compassionate appointment under the present Scheme of Rules, 1996. Counsel for respondents submits that petitioner's husband was not in employment and on their roll on the date of his death i.e. 6th November, 1991, as such she could not be considered for compassionate appointment and the Rules for Compassionate Appointment have become applicable upon workcharge employees w.e.f. 7/9/95 the benefits as such could not be extended to her. I have heard counsel for parties and perused the material on record. CW 4445/01 [4] At the relevant point of time when her husband died on 6th November, 1991, Rules of 1975 were invogue and as per Rule 2(e) of Rules, 1975 it was applicable upon deceased government servants, who died on or after 2nd day of September, 1972 and as per respondents' own saying Rules of 1975 became applicable upon workcharge employees also by a specific circular issued by the government on 7th September, 1995 which is evident from Ann.R/2 dated 27th July, 2001. When petitioner's application was pending consideration for compassionate appointment, her husband Hari Ram Meena was in their employment since 1st August, 1986 as is evident from Ann.1 dated 20/12/91 and he continuously worked in their office for almost more than 5 years. In the facts and circumstances, this court is of the opinion that widow cannot be deprived of seeking compassionate appointment who is dependant upon deceased employee who had worked on workcharge basis and was member of Workcharge Service Rules. Apart from it, under Rule 3(3) of Workcharge Service Rules, 1964 such daily wagers who have completed more than 2 years of satisfactory service became entitled for grant of semi- permanent status, her husband has also worked for more than 2 years and merely because the respondents failed in discharging their legal duty casted under the Scheme of Rules and to take decision for grant of semi-permanent status to such employees who have completed 2 years of satisfactory service benefits flowing thereof CW 4445/01 [5] atleast cannot be denied to the dependants taking note of the fact that her husband died in November, 1991 and earlier petition filed before this court was decided on 24th July, 1996 and later communication was made in 2001 and merely because petition remained pending in this court, latches cannot be attributed to her and this court is of the opinion that denial of her candidature for grant of compassionate appointment under the present scheme of Rules, 1996 is not legally sustainable. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed. Respondents are directed to consider candidature of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment under the Rules, 1996. Appropriate orders be passed within three months and decision thereof be communicated to petitioner as well. No order as to costs. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA4445CW2001 9-4.doc