CW 1406/99 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1406/99 Vinay Sharma & Anr. Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 17/03/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Vigyan Shah, for petitioners Mr. Vijay Dutt, Dy.G.A., for State *** Instant petition has been filed assailing order dated 22nd December, 1998 [Ann.11] whereby application of petitioner No.1 seeking compassionate appointment under Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Service Rules, 1996 [“Rules, 1996”] was rejected by respondent-State. Father of petitioner No.1 Late Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, while he was in government service, died on 27th November, 1982 and the petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father, but on attaining majority, application was filed in 1997 seeking compassionate appointment under Rules, 1996, but the same was rejected by State Government on 22nd December, 1998 on the premise that his elder brother is in government service, hence, in terms of Rule 5 of Rules, 1996, appointment under Compassionate Rules cannot be offered to the members of family. Counsel for petitioner submits that his elder brother namely; Anil Sharma was throughout living separately and was not member of their family. As such, the premise on which application has been rejected under order impugned is not legally sustainable. CW 1406/99 [2] Counsel for respondent-State has filed reply to the writ petition and submits once the elder son of the deceased is in government service that debars other family members to seek employment under Rules, 1996. As such, no error has been committed by respondents in rejecting his application. I have heard counsel for parties and with their assistance examined the material on record. It is undisputed that petitioner's father while in government service died in November, 1982 - application was filed seeking compassionate appointment in 1997 after almost 15 years of the date of death of his father after attaining majority and once his elder brother was in government service, Rule 5 of Rules, 1996 clearly debars other family members seeking compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment cannot be considered after lapse of reasonable period specified under the rules as the whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable family to tide over the sudden crisis. Mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. Consideration of such employment is not vested right. As such, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed and offered at any later point of time or the crisis is over. So far as submission of counsel that his elder brother was living separately at the time of death of his father is concerned, is of no substance for the reason that this situation is not contemplated CW 1406/99 [3] in the scheme of rules and once one of family members is in government employment that dis- entitles other family members seeking compassionate appointment in terms of Rule 5 of Rules, 1996. Consequently, I find no force in the writ petition, the same stands dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA1406CW1999 17-3.doc