1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2824/1995. : : Smt. Durga Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 26.3.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE MOHAMMAD RAFI Q Mr. Virendra Lodha for the petitioner. Mr. Zakir Hussain, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Shri Virendra Lodha, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground in recognition of the fact that she is widow of late Shri Om Prakash, who served the respondents as a Forest Guard and died while serving them. Learned counsel relied on judgment of Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan and another Vs. Ajay Sharma : RLR 2002 (2), 5, judgment of Single Bench of this Court in Ram Chandra Vs. Executive Engineer & Ors. : WLC (Raj.) 1999 (1) , 258 and in Kanhaiyalal Vs. State of Rajasthan : WLC 2007 (2), 386 and argued that in these cases this Court has held 2 that appointment on compassionate ground has to be treated as regular appointment on the post. It was contended that petitioner was removed from service only for the reason of absence of two days and no disciplinary proceedings were held nor any notice has been served upon her prior to passing of order of removal. It is argued that respondents have relied on Rule 23 of Rajasthan Service Rules, according to which also, if the removal order is passed on the ground of absence, enquiry would be necessary. 3. Shri Zakhir Hussain, learned Additional Government Counsel has opposed the writ petition and argued that appointment of the petitioner even though was made on compassionate ground, but it was initially made on 23.6.1994 for the period of three months and then it was extended in different spells each time for three months and lastly upto 23.6.1995. Petitioner was found absent from the duties on 26.11.1994, 22.6.1995 and 23.6.1995 and therefore, on 24.6.1995 she was not allowed to mark attendance because her service was not extended after 23.6.1995. 3 4. Having regard to the facts of the case, I find that respondents are not in position to deny the fact that appointment of the petitioner was made on compassionate ground. As held by Division Bench of this Court in Ajay Sharma (supra) appointment of this nature has to treated as regular. Even otherwise, if the respondents wanted to invoke Rule 23 of Rajasthan Service Services, it was mandatorily required for them to hold regular disciplinary proceedings even if they wanted to remove the petitioner on the charge of willful absence. In the circumstances, this writ petition deserves to be allowed, which is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of removal dated 27.6.1995 is set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to reinstatement in service with consequential benefits. Since the petitioner has continued in service under the interim order passed by this Court, she would be entitled to retain all such benefits which she has received during the intervening period. (MOHAMMAD RAFI Q)J. A.Arora/ - Item No.24.