1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1960/1995. : : Smt. Saraswati Bai Vs. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. : : Date of Order 25.8.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE MOHAMMAD RAFI Q Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi for the petitioner. Mr. Virendra Lodha for the respondents. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Smt. Saraswati Bail with the prayer that respondents be directed to give her appointment on the post of Class-IV employee in the office of Assistant Engineer, RSEB or alternately against wherever vacancy is available and challenging the order dated 13.1.1995 by which her application for compassionate appointment was rejected holding that till any of her son does not become major, such appointment cannot be given and the petitioner has been paid only annuity benefits. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner has not been provided post of Class-IV employee and therefore she is facing grave hardship. The annuity benefits of Rs.400/- per month granted to petitioner is hardly 2 sufficient to maintain herself and the family. Learned counsel has invited attention of the Court towards the order dated 7.3.1994 and 25.1.1990 and also the order dated 9.9.1991 and submitted that similarly situated persons have been given appointment on compassionate ground. Petitioner has also invited attention towards the order dated 7.3.1994 whereby Smt. Somati, Smt. Geeta Devi, Smt. Jai Devi, another Smt. Geeta Devi, Smt. Sukhdevi, Smt. Pawani Devi, Smt. Son Kanwar, Smt. Nathi Bai, Smt. Leela Devi, Smt. Sayari Devi, Smt. Anoopi Devi, Smt. Kamla Devi, Smt. Prem Devi and Smt. Narbada who were given such appointment. Learned counsel argued that rejection of application of the petitioner on the ground that respondents cannot accommodate females in their employment is wholly arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that at the material time when the application of the petitioner considered no post was vacant and that he had not completed all the formalities within time. It is however submitted that petitioner may make fresh representation and if and when vacancy is become available, her application shall be considered in accordance with law. 3 Having regard to the facts of the case, I find that respondents have given large number of appointments to the women as evident from order dated 7.3.1994. Action of the respondents in rejecting her application only because she happened to be a woman was violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is allowed. Petitioner to make a fresh application to the respondents and the same be decided by them within a period of six weeks from the date it is submitted before it. It is made clear that in case petitioner is appointed, payment of annuity benefits would be liable to be discontinued. (MOHAMMAD RAFI Q)J. A.Arora/ - Item No.H/ 4. 4 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.1960/1995. : : Smt. Saraswati Bai Vs. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. : : Date of Order 25.8.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE MOHAMMAD RAFI Q Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi for the petitioner. Mr. Virendra Lodha for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed amended cause title impleading Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur as party. The amended cause title is taken on record. (MOHAMMAD RAFI Q)J. A.Arora/ - Item No.H/ 4.