CW 8260/06 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.8260/2006 Mahendra K. Meena Versus State & (3) Ors. Date of Order ::: 08/12/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. VK Jain, for petitioner Mr. JK Agrawal, Addl.Govt. Counsel, for State Instant petition has been filed by petitioner seeking compassionate appointment claiming himself son & dependent of deceased Government servant under Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (“Rules, 1996”). Petitioner's father – Chaturbhuj was working as Cattle Guard in Forest Department, died while in service on 20/08/1997 leaving behind his widow & minor son (petitioner). After death of his father, Nanu Bai mother of petitioner being spouse & wholly dependent upon deceased Government servant, submitted application seeking compassionate appointment under Rules, 1996, upon which she was called upon vide letter dt.01/04/2000 (Ann.R.1) to complete certain formalities so as to consider her candidature, to which she did not fulfill and ultimately matter allegedly remained in abeyance. CW 8260/06 //2// Petitioner who was minor at the time of death of his father (deceased employee), on attaining majority in January, 2006, submitted application seeking compassionate appointment which was rejected by respondents vide letter dt.08/08/06 (Ann.3) on the premise that he applied for after a lapse of almost nine years of death of his father; therefore, cannot be considered for compassionate appointment under Rules, 1996. Counsel for petitioner submits that his mother initially submitted application which was never rejected by respondents and after she crossed her age of 54 years, by that time, petitioner attained majority on 06/01/06, therefore, applied for compassionate appointment and the delay, if any, could not be considered to be fatal so as to deprive him from seeking compassionate appointment. In support, Counsel placed reliance upon decision of Apex Court in Syed Khadim Hussain Vs. State of Bihar (2006(9) SCC 195). In reply to writ petition, respondents have inter-alia averred that immediately after petitioner's mother applied for compassionate appointment, she was asked vide letter dt. 01/04/2000 (Ann.R.1) for completion of certain CW 8260/06 //3// formalities but she remained silent despite reminders sent from their office and after a lapse of nine years of death of his father, petitioner on attaining majority submitted application seeking compassionate appointment in such circumstances, the authority has rightly rejected his application. I have considered rival contentions of Counsel for both the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. R.10(3) reads ad infra: “(3) Such application shall be made to the Head of the Office/Department in the proforma attached as Annexure-A to these Rules, within a period of 90 days from the date of death of the Government servant. The applicant shall submit an affidavit in support of monthly income (from all sources) of all the family members mentioned in column No.7 of Part I of the application: Provided that in exceptional case where the State Government in the Department of Personnel is satisfied that the operation of provisions of this sub-rule causes financial hardship of the family of the deceased Government servant and considers it necessary or expedient to relax the provisions of this sub-rule in a CW 8260/06 //4// particular case, it may relax the provisions of this sub-rule to such extent and subject to such conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner.” It clearly emerges from R.10(3), ibid that application has to be submitted by surviving spouse either for self or for other dependent within ninety days from the date of death of government servant. However, in exceptional cases, State Government if satisfied that sub- rule (3) of R.10 causes financial hardship to the family of deceased government servant and considers it necessary to relax the provisions in a particular case it may relax provisions of this sub-rule to such extent and subject to such conditions for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana (1994(4) SCC 138) Apex Court has examined the issue about consideration of compassionate appointment after a lapse of reasonable period as follows: “6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the Rules. The consideration of such employment is not a vested right which CW 8260/06 //5// 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 bread-winner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” Object of compassionate appointment has been considered by Apex Court recently in V.Sivamurthy Vs. State of Andh. Pradesh (2008 AIR SCW 6114), principles relating to compassionate appointments have been summarized in para 9 ad infra: (a) Compassionate appointment based only on descent is impermissible. Appointments in public service should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, having regard to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Though no other mode of appointment is permissible, appointments on compassionate grounds are well recognised exception to the said general rule, carved out in the interest of justice to meet certain contingencies. (b) Two well recognized contingencies which are carved out as exceptions to the general rule are : (i) appointment on compassionate grounds to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family on account of the death of the bread-winner while in CW 8260/06 //6// service. (ii) appointment on compassionate ground to meet the crisis in a family on account of medical invalidation of the bread winner. Another contingency, though less recognized, is where land holders lose their entire land for a public project, the scheme provides for compassionate appointment to members of the families of project affected persons. (Particularly where the law under which the acquisition is made does provide for market value and solatium, as compensation). (c) Compassionate appointment can neither be claimed, nor be granted, unless the rules governing the service permit such appointments. Such appointments shall be strictly in accordance with the scheme governing such appointments and against existing vacancies. (d) Compassionate appointments are permissible only in the case of a dependant member of family of the employee concerned, that is spouse, son or daughter and not other relatives. Such appointments should be only to posts in the lower category, that is, class III and IV posts and the crises cannot be permitted to be converted into a boon by seeking employment in Class I or II posts.” It is clear from what has been observed (supra) that appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but an exception CW 8260/06 //7// to aforesaid requirement taking note of the fact of death of employee while in service leaving behind his family without any means of livelihood. It is an exception to general rule to be strictly followed in every case seeking compassionate appointment couched with interest of justice and to meet with such contingency carved out in favour of dependents of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means for survival. Whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over sudden crisis. At the same time, such appointment on compassionate ground has to be made in accordance with rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking note of financial condition of the family of the deceased. In instant case, on application of his mother, she was informed to comply with certain formalities vide letter dt.01/04/2000 (Ann.R/1) to which she never responded. Petitioner only upon attaining majority in January, 2006 submitted application seeking compassionate appointment after almost nine years whereas it ought to have been submitted within 90 days from the date of death of deceased employee. Under CW 8260/06 //8// scheme of Rules, 1996, exceptional cases can be considered by State Government if satisfied that sub-rule (3) of R.10 causes financial hardship to the family of deceased government servant and it is necessary for dealing with in a just and equitable manner. Passage of time elapsed by petitioner in submitting application till attaining majority certainly defeated the object of Rules, 1996 being framed to consider for compassionate appointment. This Court does not find any error committed by respondents in rejecting application seeking compassionate appointment vide order impugned. Judgment on which Counsel placed reliance in Syed Khadim Hussain Vs. State of Bihar (supra), is of no assistance and in peculiar circumstances, the Apex Court directed the authorities to consider application for compassionate appointment; whereas in instant case, application has been considered under Rules, 1996 and because of lapse of time, it was rejected. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.8/8260CW06-cmpsaptt.doc