1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W)NO.789/2008 Nirmala Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. DATE OF ORDER :: 19-05-2008 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. N.S. Chauhan, for the appellant. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order impugned. By the order impugned, the prayer of the writ petitioner-appellant for her appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected and the writ application was dismissed. On account of death of husband of the appellant on 17.12.1995, an application was filed to provide job on compassionate ground to her son on attaining majority. However, subsequent to that, an application was also filed on behalf of the appellant to provide her appointment on compassionate ground. The same however was considered and rejected as barred by time. According to the case of appellant, rules were framed by the State Government in 1997 prescribing an outer limit of 45 days for filing application for appointment on compassionate ground. Admittedly, the application filed by the appellant was received in the office of respondents beyond the prescribed period. The authorities thus, rejected the application so filed. Learned counsel submitted that at the time of death of her husband, there was no outer limit prescribed by the authorities to apply for appointment on compassionate ground. However, it is not in dispute that the appellant applied for her 2 appointment on 12.12.1997 almost after 20 months of the date of death and at that time, rules framed by the State Government had come in and the same was operating. Besides all these questions, now it appears that the matter of the year 1995 has come up before us for consideration for providing job on compassionate ground to the appellant, wife of the deceased. It appears that the family is surviving for more than 10 years and no case of penury has been made out by the appellant either before the writ Court or before us in intra court appeal. By various judgments of the Apex Court, it has been set at rest that compassionate appointment cannot be asked for as a routine appointment. The financial crisis of the family is the main thing to be considered for providing job on compassionate ground. In the case of State Bank of India and Ors. Vs. Jaspal Kaur, (2007) 9 SCC 571, the Apex Court, considering the preceding judgments held that unless a case of penury is made out, appointment on compassionate ground cannot be granted after long lapse of time. It further held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed by way of right nor public office is heritable. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances as noticed above and in view of the legal prepositions referred to above, we do not find any justification at this stage to interfere in the matter. This appeal accordingly is dismissed. [MOHAMMAD RAFIQ],J. [NARAYAN ROY],CJ. Praveen