DBSAW NO.975/08. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.975/2008. In S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6234/2002. Tarun Mishra Vs. Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Limited Date of order:- October 21, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Ashok Gaur for the appellant. Mr. R.P. Garg for the respondents. ***** BY THE COURT :- Heard Mr.Ashok Gaur, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.R.P. Garg, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the order impugned. The writ application filed by the appellant seeking direction for his appointment on compassionate ground on the ground of death of his father in harness was dismissed by the writ court relying on the judgments of Apex Court in cases of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana & Others (1994(4) SCC 138) and Smt.Laxmi Devi & Another Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (SB Civil Writ Petition No.3346/98). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that father of the writ petitioner appellant died in harness. It is also submitted that though a departmental proceeding was initiated DBSAW NO.975/08. 2 against his father was not concluded nor any punishment was inflicted upon him but the authorities by the order contained in Annexure-3 in the writ petition concealed this fact by saying that during pendency of the departmental enquiry, successor will not claim any appointment on compassionate ground in Corporation’s service. It appears from the material on record that father of the appellant died in harness till the enquiry pending against him was not concluded. Appointment on compassionate ground is a shortfall in such cases and the employer considers the application so filed on behalf of the dependant for such appointment. It is not in dispute that writ petitioner appellant had applied for appointment on compassionate ground as per provisions of the rules framed by the Corporation for appointment on compassionate ground. The matter however was not considered on merit nor his claim was rejected on account of financial exigencies of the Corporation rather, the claim of the appellant was rejected merely on the ground that his deceased father had yet faced the departmental proceeding. The claim of the writ petitioner therefore was required for consideration on merits. By Annexure-3, the authorities however pre-empted his claim while disallowing his claim for appointment on compassionate ground which, in our view, is not permissible. Keeping in view these aspects of the matter, the matter requires reconsideration by the DBSAW NO.975/08. 3 respondent-Corporation as regards to the claim of the writ petitioner appellant for his appointment on compassionate ground. This appeal accordingly is allowed. Order impugned and also the order as Annexure-3 of the respondent-Corporation are set-aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent-Corporation to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with law. This exercise however must be completed by the respondent-Corporation within a period of two months from today. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. (NARAYAN ROY), CJ. anil