1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4356/03 Smt. Prem Kanwar vs. Secretary, JDA & Anr. Date of order : 30/3/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Govind Singh for the petitioner. Shri Vikas Jain for the respondent. ****** This writ petition has been filed with the prayer that the respondents may be directed to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the ground that her husband died while serving the respondents. Shri Govind Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the late husband of the petitioner was initially engaged as beldar with the respondents on daily wages on 2.11.1984. His services were arbitrarily terminated on 1.10.1987. At his instance, an industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court which by its award dated 28.6.2002 held that termination of his services by the respondents was illegal and that he would be entitled to reinstatement with 50% back wages. It is submitted that during pendency of the proceedings before 2 the Labour Court, late husband of the petitioner died. The learned Labour Court has passed by award on 28.6.2002 and declared his termination as illegal and granted him benefit of continuity. He would therefore be deemed to have been working with the respondents. The respondents would be liable to consider their case for appointment. Learned counsel cited the example of one Smt. Shanti Kanwar. According to the petitioner, she was in the similar circumstances appointed as Class IV employee on compassionate basis. The action of the respondent in not appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground is arbitrary and illegal inasmuch as such action is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Shri Vikas Jain, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the writ Petition and submitted that the late husband of the petitioner died during pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court. The petitioner had also pleaded this fact in the statement of claim about her compassionate appointment. However, the Labour Court 3 declined to grant such relief. Reference is made to that part of award of the Labour Court where such relief was declined. It is contended that since the last husband of the petitioner was not physically serving the respondents on 10.1.1996 and that the award was passed as late as on 28.8.2002, there can be no case for questioning the appointment on compassionate ground. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that the question with regard to compassionate appointment of the petitioner was specifically raised before the Labour Court and the Labour Court in its award declined to grant any such relief. Even otherwise, the death of late husband of the petitioner took place on 10.1.1996, at that time when he was not actually actively serving the respondents. Now at this stage when more than 13 years have gone by, no direction requiring the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate ground can be issued. As far as cited case of Smt. Shanti Kanwar is concerned, in the absence of complete facts, 4 it cannot be said that in that case also her husband was removed from service and died when the proceedings were pending before the Labour Court. I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/