CW 1020/95 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1020/95 Hemant Kumar Sharma Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 19/02/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. P.N. Paliwal for Mr. B.K. Sharma, for petitioner Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for respondents *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing order Ann.2 dt.9th March, 1989 whereby his appointment under Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying while in Service Rules, 1975 [“Rules, 1975”] dt.7th January, 1989 on the post of LDC was cancelled and he was discharged from service. Petitioner's father while in service of the respondents died on 3rd June, 1982. Brother of petitioner Shyam Sunder submitted application seeking compassionate appointment under Rules, 1975 and after he was found to be medically fit was given appointment as Constable vide order dt.20th January, 1983. However, the order Ann.5 does not demonstrate about appointment, if offered to him under the Rules, 1975. But, the respondents in Para 3 of their reply have categorically averred about the process being CW 1020/95 [2] adopted while giving him appointment as Constable under Rules, 1975 along with Appendix 'A' has been placed on record which too discloses that it was compassionate appointment offered to him under Rules, 1975 itself. It appears that petitioner later on also submitted application and this fact was not brought to the notice of the authority that one of his brother already got appointment under the Rules, 1975. However, the petitioner was also given appointment on the post of LDC vide order Ann.1 dt.7th January, 1989. Immediately, when this fact came to notice of the authority that his brother already got appointment under Rules, 1975, taking note thereof and so also the fact that three criminal cases were pending against him, he was discharged from service vide order Ann.2 dt.9th March, 1989. Main thrust of the submission of counsel for petitioner is that appointment of his brother i.e. Shyam Sunder was not a compassionate appointment under Rules, 1975. As such, criminal case was taken to be a basis for terminating his services vide order Ann.2 dt.9th March, 1989. In the reply filed by the respondents, this fact has been specifically averred about his CW 1020/95 [3] brother Shyam Sunder appointed as Constable vide order dt.20th January, 1983 was compassionate appointment under the Rules, 1975 and so also appendix 'A' has also been enclosed to show that process was initiated by the respondents to consider him for compassionate appointment and only after giving relaxation from physical fitness he was given appointment. There is no counter filed by the petitioner despite the fact that copy was made available way back in October, 1995. Suffice it to say that once his brother Shyam Sunder got appointment under the Rules, 1975, the petitioner certainly could not have been considered to get further appointment invoking provisions of Rules, 1975 and in such circumstances, respondents have not committed any error in discharging his service under order order impugned Ann.2 dt.9th March, 1989. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA1020CW95 19-2.doc