ANWAR HUSSAIN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W) NO. 470/09) 1 ANWAR HUSSAIN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W) NO. 470/09) Dated:- 20.7.09. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr.Vineet Kumar Mathur, for the appellant. 1. This special appeal is directed against the order dated 18.7.06 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant-writ petitioner seeking directions against the respondents for his employment on compassionate ground, stands dismissed. 2. The appellant's father Shri Mohd. Farukh employed as Carpenter in Public Health & Engineering Department, Government of Rajasthan, expired on 28.11.84 while in service. The appellant submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground, which was rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 28.10.99. In these circumstances, the appellant preferred the writ petition before this Court seeking direction against the respondents to reconsider his case for suitable appointment on compassionate ground. 3. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition holding that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot ANWAR HUSSAIN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W) NO. 470/09) 2 be claimed as a matter of right, as it is an exception to the principles of equality to provide assistance to the family of a government servant died at pre-mature stage. The learned Single Judge observed that the appellant has already suffered adversities due to death of his father in last 25 years therefore, at the belated stage, the deviation from principle of equality by giving appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground is not desirable. 4. It is to be noticed that the Rules regulating appointment on compassionate ground are framed by the employer so as to extend immediate succor to be bereaved family of the deceased employee who has died in harness. The appointment on compassionate ground, an exception carved out to the relevant recruitment Rules governing the public employment, to meet the particular contingency, cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 5. In the matter of State of Haryana vs. Rani Devi, [1996(5) SCC,308], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that “it need not be pointed out that the claim of the person concerned for appointment on compassionate ground is based on premises that he was dependent on deceased employee. Strictly, this claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of certain crisis occurring in the ANWAR HUSSAIN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W) NO. 470/09) 3 family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service.” 6. In the matter of “Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana”, [1994(4) SCC 138], Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that “The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible members of the family.” The Hon'ble Court further observed that “the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” ANWAR HUSSAIN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W) NO. 470/09) 4 7. In the instant case, the father of the appellant expired on 28.11.84 and the family of the deceased employee has survived for all these years without such help being extended on compassionate ground. Thus, after a lapse of about 25 years when the crisis period is over, granting the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground at this stage shall be against the object and spirit of the provisions of the Rajasthan (Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying While in Service) Rules, 1975. In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error warranting interference by us in this intra court appeal. 8. In the result, the special appeal fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J. (A.M.KAPADIA),J. Aditya/-