SBCWP No.3760/2000. SBCWP No.5175/1999. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R 1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3760/2000. Vinod Saini Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation and ors. 2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5175/1999. Hazari Lal Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order : December 15, 2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Bhanwar Bagri and Shri Akhil Simlote for the petitioners. Shri Virendra Lodha for the respondents. **** BY THE COURT :- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) These two writ petitions have been filed with the prayer that respodnents be directed to give compassionate appointment to petitioners whose fathers served the respodents in Udyog Bhawan Common Facility Area (respondent No.5). 3) In SBCWP No.3760/2000, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that office of the respondents is located in Udyog Bhawan which maintains a common facility like lift, electrcity, SBCWP No.3760/2000. SBCWP No.5175/1999. 2 garden, cleaning and maintenance, security and water etc. The expenses of common facilities are born by the respodnents namely; Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation, Rajasthan State Mineral Development Corporation and Rjasthan Small Industrial Corporation. For all these maintenance works, respodnents have formed a Udyog Bhawan Common Facilities Society. This society is also responsible for arranging the meetings, functions and programmes held by the respondents from time to time within the premises of Udyog Bhawan. Services of the employees of the Udyog Bhawan Facility Common Society are many times placed at the disposal of the respondents. Respondent No.6 Registrar, Udyog Bhawan Common Facilities Society is the executive incharge of the facility society. 4) It is contended that Shri Ramnarain Saini, father of petitioner-Vinod Saini was appointed in the services of Udyog Bhawan Comon Facilities Society in the year 1982 on the post of Watchman. His services were regularised pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated 19/11/1990 passed in SBCWP No.366/1990. He was sole bread earnier of the family. He while serving with respondent No.5 Society, died on 12/10/1999. Thereafter, petitioner Vinod Saini submitted an application to the respondents on SBCWP No.3760/2000. SBCWP No.5175/1999. 3 28/10/1999 for giving him appointment on the post of Class-IV on compassionate ground. He then submitted another application on 6/12/1999. Respondent No.6 by his letter dated 29/31.3.2000 declimed to make appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. He therefore served upon the respondents notice for demand of justice on 13/5/2000. Thereafter, when still appointment was not given, he filed writ petition. 5) Petitioner-Hazari Lal Meena has also submitted that his father Prabhati Lal Meena was employed with the said Society on the post of Gardener. His services were regularised pursuant to the aforesaid judgment of this Court. His father was thus a regular and permanent employee of the respondents w.e.f. 17/1/1990. Copy of the order dated 27/8/1990 has been placed on record that he was being paid in the regular pay scale. Prabhati Lal Meena, father of the petitioner unfortunately died on 16/1/1999 while still in services of the respondents. Mother of petitioner Hazarilal Meena also died on 2/2/1999. He claimed appointment on compassionate ground. Respondents have adopted the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 and all other services applicable to the government employees for governing the service condition of the employees of the respondent-society. They have however did not accept prayer of the SBCWP No.3760/2000. SBCWP No.5175/1999. 4 petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate ground. 6) Shri Bhanwar Bagri, learned counsel for petitioner-Vinod Saini has argued that since the respondent has been held to be a State within the meaning of Section 12 of the Constitution of India and since it has adopted the Rajasthan Service Rules and CCA Rules and other service rules with regard to payment of salary and allowances, Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1996 also would apply to their employees. Learned counsel in this connection relied on the office order issued by the respondent Society dated 27/1/1999. It was argued that the petitioners are from lowest starta of the society and that their father were the only bread earnier of the family. Due to the death of their father, family was living in financial crises and was not in a position to maintain it. Respondents have arbitrarily decided not to consider case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment because they at one point of time decided not to make any further recruitment with the society. It was argued that the vacancies against which fathers of petitioners were working were still available with them and that claim of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate ground can be considered against such vacancies. Respondents SBCWP No.3760/2000. SBCWP No.5175/1999. 5 society functions as a common facility for all the organisations and that posts of Class-IV employees i.e. Chowkidars, Security Guards, Messengers, Liftmen, Gardeners and Sweepers are still availagle with the respondents. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Babulal Saini Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation and ors. : WLR 1992 (S) Raj. 198, in which, it was held that if requirement of work is continuous requirement, the post should be made permanent as per the government circulars. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in Smt.Barfi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2005(8) RDD 3171 (Raj.). It was held in that case that mere delay may not come in the way of granting relief to the petitioner who was claiming appointment on compassionate grounds. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Syed Khadim Hussain Vs. State of Bihar and others : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1681, in which case too, direction was given to give appointment on compassionate ground inspite of delay of number of years. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in Balvinder Singh Vs. Managing Director RSRTC : 2008(1) CDR 479 (Raj.) and argued that delay cannot be a reason for denying the compassionate appointment. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Draupadi Behara (Smt.) and SBCWP No.3760/2000. SBCWP No.5175/1999. 6 another : 2005 SCC (L&S) 267 for the same proposition. It was therefore prayed that writ petition be allowed with direction to the respondents to give appointment to the petitioners on compassionate ground. 7) Shri Virendra Lodha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the repsondents opposed the writ petitions and argued that respondents merely adopted the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 and Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 for the employees of UBCF namely; the respondent-Society. No other rule was adopted and therefore it cannot be said that just because the aforesaid two rules were adopted, Dependants of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1996 came to be adopted. It was argued that even if decision of the respondents in making fresh appointment is ignored, fact remains that without there being any provision of giving compassionate appointment or decision of the respondent-society to adopt the Dependants of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1996 in that behalf, no direction can be given requiring the respondents to act thereupon. There is no rule or regulation providing compassioante appointment to the dependants of the employees of the respondent-society. It was further argued that even if it is assumed for the SBCWP No.3760/2000. SBCWP No.5175/1999. 7 sake of argument that rules would have been applicable, which in fact are not, at this belated stage, when fathers of petitioners expired on 12/10/1999 and 16/1/1999 respectively, there would be no justification for claiming compassionate appointment as families have in any case maintained themselves for so long. It was therefore prayed that writ petitions be dismissed. 8) I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments aforesaid and perused the material on record. 9) What is significant to note is that petitioners have not been able to show whether there is any provision for compassionate appointment in the services of the respodnent-society namely UBCF. Rules applicable to the employees of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation, Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation, Rajasthan State Mineral Development Corporation and Rjasthan Small Industrial Corporation cannot be extended to the employees of the UBCF merely on the basis of analogy. Respondent-society has not framed any rules or regulations to make provision for compassionate appointment to the depandants of its employees who died while in service. In the absence of any such rule or instructions, no direction can possibly be given to the respondent-society to accommodate the SBCWP No.3760/2000. SBCWP No.5175/1999. 8 petitioners on compassionate ground. Judgment of this Court in Babulal Saini supra was one relating to regularisation and not for compassionate appointment. As for the judgments, on the law of compassionate appointment and on the question of delay, it must be noticed that all those judgments which have now been cited on the question of delay by themselves cannot help the petitioners because in these judgments, there was a provision for compassionate appointment whereas in the present case there is none. No direction can possibly be given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate ground. 10) I therefore do not find any merit in any of the writ petition. Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil