1 D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.505/2000 Smt. Laxmi Devi Garg v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Judgment :: 5th May, 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.P.GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. A.K.Choudhary for Mr.M.Mridul, Senior Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sudhir Tak, for the respondents. .... To challenge correctness of the judgment dated 11.5.2000 passed in SBCivil Writ Petition No.2251/1998, this special appeal is preferred. The facts necessary to be noticed are that :- (1) Shri Shantilal Garg, husband of the appellant, while working as Lecturer in a Government College, died on 10.12.1997; (2) the appellant, on 29.12.1997, submitted an application as per the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1996”) seeking appointment for her son Shri 2 Dinesh Kumar, aged 15 years 6 months, as Lower Division Clerk, the post for which he was possessing educational eligibility as prescribed for direct recruitment as per provisions of the Rajasthan Subordinate Offices Ministerial Staff Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1957”); and (3) the Joint Director, Department of College Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, by his communication dated 20.5.1998 informed the appellant that Shri Dinesh Kumar being minor is neither entitled for appointment as claimed nor his claim for appointment can be kept alive for consideration till he attains majority. A petition for writ preferred by the appellant to assail decision of the respondents contained in letter dated 20.5.1998, came to be rejected on the count that this Court in case of Mancha Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCivil Writ Petition No.2773/1999) struck down an amendment made in sub-rule(3) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1996 prescribing that in case an employee dies while in harness leaving behind no major child on the date of death, the intimation may be furnished to the Head of Department regarding this fact and within a period of three months after attaining the majority, if applies for compassionate appointment, his application shall be considered strictly in accordance with law. 3 As per counsel for the appellant, the appellant submitted an application seeking appointment for her son as early as possible and this fact itself proves harness suffered by her warranting employment on compassionate grounds. It is asserted that either the respondents should have kept candidature of the appellant's son alive for appointment under the Rules of 1996 till attaining majority by him or a relaxation should have been granted in minimum age for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk by exercising powers under Rule 35 of the Rules of 1957. As per the respondents, appointments under the Rules of 1996 can be accorded to the wards of a deceased government servant only on having necessary eligibility to hold the post concerned as prescribed under relevant rules regulating service conditions and in case of the appellant, her son was not of 18 years i.e. the minimum age limit for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk under the Rules of 1957 and as such learned Single Judge rightly affirmed decision of the respondents. It is also urged that appointment on compassionate reason is exception to general principle of equality and that can be a reasonable classification till family of the deceased suffer harness. In the case in hand, no such harness now exists, thus, no direction for employing the ward is require to be given. 4 Heard counsel for the parties. True it is, appointments on compassionate grounds are in deviation from doctrine of equality with an object to meet harness suffered by family of a deceased government servant and such deviation cannot be permitted to exist for an indefinite period i.e. to wait for years together till a minor child acquires majority. It is also true that the Rules of 1996 provides that appointments to wards of a deceased government servant, except a widow may be given only to a post for which they possess eligibility prescribed under the relevant recruitment rules, and in instant case ward of the deceased government servant was lacking eligibility for recruitment to the post of Lower Division Clerk under the Rules of 1957, being below the age of 18 years, however, the issue require consideration is that whether the deficiency in eligibility was of uncondonable nature or that could have been settled to ensure the objects for extending appointments on compassionate grounds. It is not in dispute that on 29.12.1997 son of the appellant was having requisite educational qualification to hold the post of Lower Division Clerk. The only deficiency was regarding age prescribed under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1957 to enter in Rajasthan Subordinate Offices and Ministerial Staff 5 Services. Rule 35 of the Rules aforesaid empowers the General Administrative Department of Government of Rajasthan to relax the rules relating to age in exceptional cases on being satisfied that operation of rule concerned shall cause undue hardship in any particular case. The case of the appellant's son for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected by the respondents without examining hardship caused to him and his family and also without examining need of operation of relaxation clause. The fact that the petitioner submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds for her son within a period of 20 days of the death of her husband, clearly establishes gravity of the harness suffered and need of employment atleast to one person in her family. The respondents instead of rejecting the application submitted for appointment of Shri Dinesh Kumar on compassionate grounds should have referred his case to General Administrative Department of Government of Rajasthan to assess hardship demanding relaxation in the rules. No such exercise was undertaken by the respondents and straightway candidature of appellant's son was rejected. The object of making appointment on compassionate grounds is to rehabilitate a family in distress due to untimely death of a government servant, thus, all 6 efforts should be made by the authority competent to achieve object of the scheme concern instead of avoiding for that on technical grounds. We are of the view that denial for appointment on compassionate grounds to son of the appellant by the respondents under letter dated 20.5.1998 was not proper. On reaching at this conclusion, we could have remanded the matter to General Administrative Department of the Government of Rajasthan to assess hardship faced and to consider case of the appellant's son for appointment as per the Rules of 1996, however, looking to the fact that during currency of this litigation Shri Dinesh Kumar has already acquired majority and the appellant may have consoled herself by flux of time, we directed counsel for the appellant on 28.4.2009 to find out as to what is the latest placement of the appellant. It is informed to the Court that none of the children of the appellant is in employment and as such she is still suffering harness because of untimely death of sole bread earner. Her hardship is also evident from consideration of the facts in applying for appointment at very early stage, thus, instead of remanding the matter to the General Administrative Department for consideration of the case of the appellant's son for appointment as Lower Division Clerk, we consider it appropriate to issue necessary directions to the respondents at our own. 7 Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment impugned dated 11.5.2000 is quashed. The petition for writ is allowed with direction to the respondents to provide appointment to appellant's son Shri Dinesh Kumar as Lower Division Clerk as per provisions of the Rules of 1996. Entire process for making such appointment is required to be completed within a period of four months from today. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. (N.P.GUPTA),J. kkm/ps.