1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1956/2002. : : Ajendra Pal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 2.12.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Prahlad Singh for the petitioner. Mr.Aklesh Jain, Dy.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18.6.2001 whereby his application for appointment on compassionate ground has been dismissed. Shri Prahlad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that when his father expired on 25.12.1991, he was still a minor therefore his mother made first application on 16.3.1992 requesting that the right of the petitioner to seek compassionate appointment should be kept alive till he became major. The petitioner passed secondary examination and thereafter became major on 6.1.1997. It was argued that application of the petitioner has been arbitrarily rejected by the respondents vide impugned order 2 as time barred. The fact was that the mother after the petitioner became major made number of applications in the year 1996 and 1997. Reference was made to application dated 24.12.1996, 6.2.1997 and 5.3.1997. Learned counsel argued that provision for giving compassionate appointment in lieu of services rendered by a Government servant who died while serving, is a beneficial provision and has to be construed liberally. Action of the respondents therefore should be held illegal and the respondents be directed to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Shri Aklesh Jain, learned Deputy Government Counsel for the State has opposed the writ petition and denied that any application was made by mother of the petitioner in the year 1996 and 1997. He has contended that first application was moved by her on 16.3.1992 and thereafter even according to her showing, the petitioner attained majority on 6.1.1997. The second application was moved by the mother three years and eight months thereafter on 23.10.2000. It was contended that according to Rule 10 (3) Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996, the time limit for such an application is 90 days and in the present case, it is counted from the date on which the petitioner attained 3 majority, this application was submitted with the delay of three years and eight months. This Court in the case of Mancha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2001 (1) RLR, 433 struck down the provision, which was introduced by way of amending Rule 10 (3) to provide that after death of Government servant whenever his dependant attains majority he can apply for compassionate appointment. It was held that the aforesaid provision violated Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India so far as it provides for appointment to dependant after attaining majority even if an inordinate delay has taken place after the death of the employee, offering appointment to him at such a belated stage would not serve the purpose of granting immediate financial relief. Validity of Rule 10 (3) was challenged and was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Board of Revenue for Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Rajendra : 2001 (1) RLR, 500. Here is a case where the death has taken place in the year 1991 and the application for compassionate appointment has been made in the year 2000. Even otherwise, the object for compassionate appointment is to provide financial relief to redeem the grieved family from financial crisis. 4 In view of such an enormous delay and in view of the fact that more than 17 years have gone by, no case for mandamus is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.37.