1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4625/2004 Hem Singh v. State of Rajasthan DATE OF ORDER :: 17 th January, 2007 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mrs.Nupur Bhati , for the petitioner. Mr. B.L.Tiwari, Deputy Government Advocate. .... By this petition for writ a challenge is given to the communication dated 3.3.2003 whereby the Technical Assistant-Ist in the office of the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, denied appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds being over age. In brief, facts of the case are that the petitioner by claiming himself to be an adopted son of Late Shri Bhoor Singh submitted an application under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1996”) for appointment on compassionate grounds. The application aforesaid was rejected under an order dated 22.4.1999 on the ground that the adoption made was in contravention to the conditions given under Section 10 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 as the age of the petitioner at the time of adoption was of 29 years. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court (SBCWP 2 No.2324/2000) that came to b e dismissed by order dated 18.7.2000 with observations as under:- “If the petitioner claims that there is/was a custom in this community/locality to take a person beyond 15 years of age, it is for the petitioner to establish his case before the competent civil court that there was/is a custom of adoption of a person beyond 15 years of age. However, for that purpose, the petitioner has to file a suit for declaration that his adoption at the age of 29 years in violation of the provisions of Section 10 of the Act of 1956 was valid being customary. No relief can be granted to the petitioner by this Court, however he is at liberty to file a suit for declaration before the competent Civil Court.” After dismissal of the writ petition a suit preferred by the petitioner before competent civil court was decreed and the petitioner was declared an adopted son of Late Shri Bhoor Singh. After getting the declaration as above the petitioner asserted his cause for appointment on compassionate grounds but that too came to be rejected by communication dated 3.3.2003. The Technical Assistant-Ist in the office of Chief Engineer, Public Works Department rejected claim of the petitioner by treating him over age. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents at first instance by creating a doubt 3 about the fact of his adoption as son by Late Shri Bhoor Singh but after getting a declaratory decree that the petitioner is an adopted son of Late Shri Bhoor Singh, there was no occasion for the respondents to reject claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. On asking, it is stated by counsel for the petitioner that the date of birth of the petitioner is 15.3.1960 and at first instance he submitted an application under the Rules of 1996 on 30.4.1999. The petitioner, therefore, on the day he submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds was of more than 39 years. According to Rule 8 of the Rules of 1996 the dependent claiming appointment under the Rules of 1996 should be within the age limit prescribed for the post under concerned service rules at the time of appointment. A dependent is having a right for relaxation in the maximum age limit by five years in period or upto 40 years of age, whichever is less, however, no such maximum age limit applicable in the case where widow of a deceased government servant is claiming appointment. The petitioner claimed appointment to the post of Class-IV employee and under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Class-IV Service (Recruitment and other 4 Service Conditions) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1999”) the maximum age limit for appointment in Class-IV cadre is of 33 years. By granting relaxation as prescribed under Rule 8 of the Rules of 1996 a dependent of a deceased government servant other than a widow could be appointed as Class-IV employee upto to the age of 37 years. The petitioner admittedly on the day he submitted application for appointment on compassionate grounds was of more than 37 years, as such in view of the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1996 read with Rule 13 of the Rules of 1999 he was not eligible to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. The respondents, therefore, rightly rejected claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. In result, the writ petition is dismissed with no order to costs. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.