[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1680/2008 VIVEK DASHORA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Date: 22.09.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. Rajesh Mootha for the petitioner. Mr. Rajnish Gupta, Dy. Govt. Counsel for the State. **** By way of this writ petition the petitioner is seeking appointment on the compassionate ground under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying While in Service Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules of 1996') as the father of the petitioner Shri Kailash Chand Dashora died on 29.08.1995 while he was in service and posted as Teacher in Government Nehru Upper Primary School, Jhalawar. It is submitted that at the time of death of his father, the petitioner was only 8 years of age and immediately on attaining the age of majority, he submitted an application before the respondents for providing him appointment on compassionate ground under the Rules of 1996 in place of his deceased father, but the application of the petitioner has been rejected vide order impugned dated 27.09.2007 on the ground that as the wife of the deceased is already in Government service as a Teacher, therefore, as per Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. [2] I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties and carefully gone through the averments made in the writ petition. As the mother of the petitioner was already in Government service at the time of death of father of the petitioner, therefore, appointment on compassionate ground has rightly been denied by the respondents. Even otherwise also, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana And Others, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138, in para No. 6 has held as under:- “6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case in view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana And Others (supra), this Court do not find any merit in the writ petition. In the result, the writ petition fails being devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/