SBCWP6727/2010 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6727/2010 Mukesh Kumar Bagra Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another Date of Order ::: 12.05.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Mukesh Bijarania, Counsel for petitioner #### By the Court:- Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner's father, who was serving the respondent Corporation, died on 23.10.1999 in harness. An application was made by him for appointment on compassionate ground on 19.08.2009 when he became major. It is contended that respondents have illegally rejected petitioner's application holding it to be barred by limitation. Petitioner filed that application more than two years after the death of his father. As per the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment. Learned counsel cited the judgment of this Court in Parmeshwar Kumar Verma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others – 2005 (4) WLC (Raj.) 512, to say that the application of a person for compassionate appointment, who was minor earlier and attained majority later on, cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation as he would be entitled to benefit of the Limitation Act, SBCWP6727/2010 // 2 // 1963. I am afraid the aforesaid judgment cannot be accepted because the provisions of Limitation Act can be applied only to the proceedings of the court and not to administrative order of the government functionaries. Moreover the law that has been enunciated by the Division Bench of this Court in Board of Revenue for Rajasthan and Another Vs. Rajendra – 2001 (1) RLR 500, is to the contrary, wherein validity of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 prescribing limitation was upheld rejecting the similar argument. In fact this Court in Mancha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2001 (1) RLR 433, declared the amendment made by the Government in the Rules of 1996 ultra vires so far as it provides for appointment to dependent after attaining majority after inordinate delay from the death of employee. It was held that the very object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the bereaved family and it cannot be treated as source of parallel recruitment so as to keep such right alive till a minor become major. I therefore do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//