1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Nipendra Singh Vs. Shri Ashok Jain, Chairman cum Managing Director, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Path, Jaipur & Anr. (S.B. Civil Misc. Application No.41/2008) In (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1422/2005) S.B. Civil Misc. Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 CPC Date of Order :- 11th March, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.R.P. Vijay, for the applicant. Mr.N.S. Chauhan, for the respondents. The present application has been moved for clarification of the judgment dated 20.12.2006 passed by this Court. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the following observation was made by this Court in the judgment dated 20.12.2006 : From the above narration of law it is made out that if an application is filed after a long period to claim compassionate appointment the very purpose and object of compassionate appointment gets frustrated. The reasonable period which has been fixed by the Supreme 2 Court in various judgments as noticed above is that in case any candidate seeks relief on attaining the age of majority after on year, it shall amount that as if the post is kept reserved for him. The post cannot be claimed as a matter of right or as reserved till the petitioner applies for the post. The application should have been filed immediately on attaining the age of majority. Despite the fact that the applicant had applied within one year of his reaching the age of majority, while issuing the directions, this Court had dismissed the petitioner's writ petition on the ground that his application was belated. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, a certain amount of confusion does exist in the judgment dated 20.12.2006. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Singh [(1995) 6 SCC 476], wherein one of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that according to Rule V of the Railway Rules prescribes a period of limitation for submitting the application for compassionate appointment. While referring to the said judgment, this Court had made the observation quoted above. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel is that since the applicant had filed his application for compassionate appointment within one year of having attained majority, his writ petition should not have been rejected. 3 On the other hand, Mr. N.S. Chauhan, the learned counsel for the respondents, had contended that the observation made by the learned Judge on the basis of the case of Bhagwan Singh (supra) is slightly misplaced as in the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not laid down a principle that a person would be justified in applying for his compassionate appointment within one year of having attained majority. In fact, the Apex Court was merely quoting the contention raised by the appellant and was referring to Rule V of the Railway Rules. He has further contended that Rule V of the Railway Rules prescribes a period of limitation. However, Rule V cannot be read and cannot be applied to the RSRTC. Therefore, the limitation prescribed under the Railway Rules cannot be enforced upon the RSRTC. Hence, the observation made by the learned Judge would not come to the rescue of the applicant. Lastly, it is, indeed, a settled principle of law that compassionate appointments have to be made immediately after the death of bread earner so as to rescue the family from the economic crisis that it may face due to his death. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the applicant, has also contended that according to the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 ('the Rules of 1996', for short), a power to relax the period has been given. Therefore, the power should have been exercised by the concerned authority. 4 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, contends that the power to relax the limitation is a discretionary power. Therefore, this Court cannot compel the appropriate authority to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant. Moreover, this contention was not raised before the learned Judge and is not reflected in the judgment dated 20.12.2006. Thus, a new plea cannot be taken at this state. Heard the learned counsel for the parties; perused the judgment dated 20.12.2006 and case law cited at the bar. In the case of Bhagwan Singh (supra), the appellant had contended that the respondents should have applied within the stipulated period prescribed under Rule V of the Railway Rules. According to the Rule V, the application should have been filed within five years of the death of bread earner and could be filed within one year of having attained majority. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not laid down as a principle of law that in every case a person can apply within one year of having attained his majority. Therefore, the observation made by the learned Judge in the present case that the period of limitation has been prescribed is based on a wrong reading of a case of Bhagwan Singh (supra). Moreover, the Rule V of the Railway Rules cannot possibly be applied to the case of RSRTC. Furthermore, the Rules of 1996 do not prescribe a period of limitation. In fact, the Rules of 5 1996 prescribe that the application has to be made within ninety days of the death of the employee. Since, in the present case, the application was not filed within ninety days of the death of the applicant's father, the learned Judge was certainly justified in dismissing the writ petition. Since the judgment dated 20.12.2006 does not reflect that a contention was raised for invoking the discretionary power of relaxation, at this stage this Court cannot consider the said contention. Moreover, once a discretionary power has been bestowed, the Court cannot compel the appropriate authority to exercise its discretion one way or the other. In case, the Court were to do so, then the discretionary power would stand absolutely controlled by judicial intervention. Such a procedure would cause the death knell of the provision itself. Therefore, the application for clarification of the judgment dated 20.12.2006 is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-