1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5460/2002. : : Mahavir Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 1.4.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. S. K. Saksena for the petitioner. Mr. Zakir Hussain, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by his non-appointment on compassionate ground being dependent of deceased government employee Hanuman Singh. 3. Shri S. K. Saksena, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is dependent of deceased employee of respondent Hanuman Singh, who was serving with them on the post of Cattle Guard and after his death his widow Smt. Nand Kanwar submitted an application for appointment of petitioner on compassionate ground under 2 Rule 5 of Rajasthan (Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants while Dying in Service) Rules, 1975 (for short “the Rules of 1975”). Application submitted by petitioner’s mother was forwarded by Divisional Forest Officer, Ajmer to Chief Conservator of Forest, Rajasthan, Jaipur for sanction of appointment. Affidavit of mother of petitioner was also submitted under which it was stated that elder son Raghuveer Singh has gone in an adoption elsewhere, therefore, only petitioner is entitled to appointment. It is contended that DFO, Ajmer by letter dated 22.6.1996 directed the petitioner to submit affidavit of mother, sister and brother deposing that they had no objection for his appointment. Petitioner submitted the required affidavits, but subsequently it appears that brother of petitioner also applied for compassionate appointment. Even this dispute was resolved by respondents themselves who conveyed to petitioner as well as his mother that petitioner was being considered for appointment. 3. Shri Zakir Hussain, learned Additional Government Counsel has opposed the writ petition and submitted that father of petitioner was merely a work charged employee, who was semi-permanent Cattle Guard at the time of his 3 death. The Rules of 1975 were not applicable to work charge employee prior to 7.9.1995. It was contended that two applications were received, one by petitioner and other by his elder brother Raghuveer Singh, which were forwarded to Office of Chief Conservator of Forest. In fact, elder brother of petitioner in his application dated 14.6.1996 addressed to DFO, Ajmer stated that petitioner was not mentally sound, therefore, appointment on compassionate ground should be given to him alone. Mother of petitioner made endorsement on the application of both petitioner and his elder brother. Conservator of Forest by letter dated 7.10.1996 addressed to DFO, Ajmer directed action as per his earlier instructions, wherein it was decided to give appointment to petitioner. Later on DFO, Ajmer by letter dated 25.10.1996 addressed to mother of petitioner also stated that action for offering appointment to her younger son was being taken accordingly. It is contended that mother of petitioner was informed by letter dated 25.10.1996 and subsequently petitioner was informed by letter dated 22.8.1997 to submit required documents within a period of seven days failing which his claim for appointment would be rejected. Copy of letter was received by petitioner on 30.8.1997 and even than he did not take any action. 4 4. Learned counsel for he petitioner has rejoined and submitted that there was no question of delay in not taking any action. In fact, letter dated 22.8.1997 was never received to him. The respondents may now even be directed to consider case of petitioner for compassionate appointment. 5. Even if what is contended by the petitioner that he has not received the letter dated 22.8.1997 is accepted though this fact was disputed by respondents, but still the question remains that petitioner approached this Court in later part of the year 2002 whereas death of his father in lieu of service rendered by whom petitioner is claiming appointment on compassionate grounds, took place on 15.3.1992. The writ petition has thus been filed ten years after the death of deceased government servant. The last representation which the petitioner appears to have made with delay and the correspondent made by respondents and his mother took place in 1996 and in 1997 even from that date the writ petition has been filed belatedly in the year 2002. The object of providing compassionate appointment is to help the family of deceased government servant, who is leaving in the condition of penury and such help has to be 5 provided immediately at the time of distress. Now that 17 years have gone by, no direction in the nature that has been prayed by petitioner can be issued to the respondents. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.40.