- 1 - S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7488/2006 (Devi Lal Mali vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) DATE OF ORDER : 1/5/2008 HON'BLE JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Himanshu Shrimali, for the petitioner. Mr.Shyam Ladrecha, Government counsel. By this petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing orders dated 2/5/2000 and 19/8/2000, so also order dated 22/8/2000 (Annex.9), whereby, petitioner's appointment on compassionate ground was cancelled. According to facts of the case, petitioner was provided appointment on compassionate ground because petitioner's father late Shri Chaggan Lal Mali was substantively working in the Forest Department and he died while in service in an accident. The petitioner being qualified for the post of Forest Guard filed an application for providing appointment on compassionate ground. After considering the candidature of petitioner, order of appointment was issued on 29/2/2000, whereby, under the Rules of 1996 petitioner was provided appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Forest Guard. This - 2 - appointment was made on urgent temporary basis for a period of three months. Vide order dated 2/5/2000, order of appointment dated 29/2/2000 was declared ineffective in pursuance of order passed by Chief Conservator of Forest, Rajasthan. Again vide order dated 8/5/2000 order dated 2/5/2000 was cancelled and petitioner was allowed to work on the post of Forest Guard and ultimately the order dated 8/5/2000 was again cancelled and order dated 2/5/2000 was made effective vide impugned order dated 22.8.2000. Meaning thereby, the appointment order made in favour of petitioner on 29.2.2000 was declared ineffective though it made after due consideration by the respondents to provide appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. The case of petitioner is that his claim for providing appointment on compassionate ground is well founded under the Rules of 1996 because his father late Shri Chaggan Lal Mali was substantively working on the post of Forest Guard and after his death a request was made by the petitioner for providing appointment and the application filed by the petitioner was duly considered and after due consideration appointment order was issued and without assigning any reason the said order was made ineffective by the respondents. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner - 3 - that for present controversy though initially petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Service Appellate Tribunal but same was withdrawn because there was no jurisdiction left with the Service Appellate Tribunal to decide the matter of termination so also the Industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner challenging the action of respondents and said proceedings are still pending with the appropriate Government because after failure of conciliation proceedings, matter was referred to the appropriate Government for reference. In this case petitioner's candidature for providing appointment on compassionate ground was considered and he was found suitable, so also order of appointment was issued and petitioner joined duties but by impugned order the order of appointment made in favour of petitioner was declared ineffective without assigning any reason. Further, it is submitted that respondent's action is totally unconstitutional and against the provisions of the Rules of 1996 which is framed by the State Legislature for providing appointment on compassionate ground for welfare and maintenance of the family of deceased Government employee. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that though the proceedings with regard to challenge to termination order by - 4 - way of raising industrial dispute is pending before the appropriate government for reference but due to hardship of family he has approached this Court as said remedy is not efficacious remedy and since 1999 members of the deceased employee are struggling for bread and butter and purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is frustrated because though appointment was made earlier but later on such order was snatched away by illegal orders by the respondents which is arbitrary, illegal action of the respondents, therefore, ignoring the fact of pendency of proceedings before the appropriate government, this writ petition may be allowed and while quashing the orders Annex.19 dated 1/5/2000 and 9 dated 22/8/2000 respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. Per contra, learned Government Counsel by way of filing reply submitted that first of all this writ petition is not maintainable because after failure of conciliation proceedings, matter is under consideration for reference with the State Government, therefore, writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. Secondly, it is submitted that petitioner's father died in the year 1985 and application for appointment on compassionate ground was made in the year 1998 after lapse of 13 years, hence this writ petition deserves to be dismissed on - 5 - the ground of delay also. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings of the case. In this case it is not disputed by the respondents that petitioner's father late Shri Chaggan Lal was working substantively with the Department and died while working in the Forest Department, it is also not disputed that petitioner's case was considered and after due consideration on the basis of recommendation made by the Committee constituted by the Department, appointment order was made in favour of petitioner. If appointment was made after due consideration by the respondents on the basis of recommendation of committee then why such order was made ineffective is best known to the respondents. In reply it is nowhere stated that why the impugned is bad which is made after due consideration by the committee constituted by the department for providing appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground, therefore, the orders impugned are non speaking orders, hence they are against the principle of natural justice. In reply only two specific grounds are raised, one with regard to pendency of industrial dispute and another with regard to delay in filing application for providing appointment on - 6 - compassionate ground because petitioner's father died on 16/4/1985, whereas, application was for compassionate appointment was made on 5/11/998. In my considered opinion, the whole purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to provide relief to the family of deceased Government employee and while considering this aspect of the matter, appointment order was made in favour of petitioner on the basis of recommendation of committee, therefore, even if any reference will be made by the State Government in this case then it will take time for final adjudication by the labour court. It is also one of the important facts that still reference is yet to be made by the State Government, therefore, first objection raised by the respondents with regard to pendency of matter for reference with State Government cannot be treated as bar for adjudicating the claim of petitioner, therefore, I deem it just and proper to adjudicate the claim of petitioner for providing appointment on compassionate ground in this writ petition itself. The second ground urged by the respondents also appears to be baseless because it is nowhere mentioned in any of the orders that on what ground appointment order which is made in pursuance of recommendation made by the committee is illegal and contrary to the Rules of 1996. Therefore, in absence of any reason in the impugned order, I am unable to accept the - 7 - contention raised by the respondents that petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. In this case, before providing appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner, a committee was constituted and after due consideration recommendation was made by the committee for providing appointment to the petitioner, therefore, in my opinion it is not open for the Department to snatch the right of continuity in service without any reason. In view of the above discussion, the impugned orders dated 2.5.2000 and 22.8.2000 are set aside. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith with all consequential benefits. However, petitioner will be entitled for back wages with effect from the date of filing writ petition, which is 20/12/2006. It is also made clear that petitioner shall maintain the family of Late Shri Chaggan Lal The writ petition is disposed of as indicated above. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. pankaj baweja