1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.445/2007 Harish Kumar Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of Order :: 8.7.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Girish Sankhla, for the petitioner. Mr. Rameshwar Dave, for the respondents. ... By this petition for writ a direction is sought for providing appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds as per the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules of 1996). The factual matrix necessary for adjudication of the present petition for writ is that father of the petitioner Sh. Mansha Ram died on 18.12.1999 while in service of the respondents at Primary Health Center, Anadra. An application was preferred by the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate grounds and that came to be rejected by the Addl. Director (Admn.), Medical & Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur on 20.6.2000 on the count that the elder brother of the petitioner Sh. Ramesh Kumar was already working as Sweeper at Veterinary Hospital, Anadra. Aggrieved by the same this petition for writ was filed on 11.12.2006 with the contention (i) that the intention of the Rules of 1996 is to provide appointment to the dependants of the deceased government servants and Sh. Ramesh Kumar was not dependant of late Sh. Mansha Ram, as such, the appointment should have been accorded to the petitioner with whom widow of late Sh. Mansha Ram is residing and, (2) as per Rule 10 of the Rules of 1996 the State Government should have examined the exceptional circumstances available in the present case warranting relaxation of the provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996. 2 I have considered the argument advanced. It is well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds can not be claimed as a right as it is a deviation from the principles of equality only to extend a helping hand to the wards of the deceased government servant facing harness. In the instant matter Sh. Mansha Ram died in the year 1999 and claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents on 20.6.2000. The petitioner preferred present writ petition on 11.12.2006 that is after a lapse of more than six years from the date of rejection of his claim by the respondents. The delay in filing the writ petition itself proves that the petitioner was not at all in harness or was not in acute need of the employment warranting deviation from the principles of equality. The petitioner certainly submitted certain representations to the respondents after rejection of his claim but those are of no consequence in view of the fact that a definite decision was already taken by the respondents much back in the year 2000. The delay in filing the writ petition is fatal, and therefore, same is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal