1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1980/2005 (Nanu Ram Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) Date of order : 08.04.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Ms. Dipika Vyas, for the petitioner. Mr. Shyam Ladrecha, Dy. Govt. Counsel. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to provide him appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1996”, only). The claim of the petitioner is that he is 2 adopted son of late Chotu Ram, who was discharging duties as Helper II in P.H.E.D. and he was posted at Sub-division Degana when he died. The petitioner was adopted by late Chotu Ram vide adoption deed dated 8.8.1994 which has been placed on record as Annexure-2. According to the petitioner, his father Chotu Ram died on 15.7.1996 and first application was submitted by the petitioner on 2.8.1996 when the petitioner was minor because his date of birth is 10.7.1986 thereafter after attaining majority the petitioner moved an application under the Rules of 1996 for providing appointment being a legally adopted son of late Chotu Ram but the petitioner's application for appointment was not accepted, therefore, the petitioner filed this writ petition for seeking direction to the respondents for providing him appointment. While filing reply, it is stated by respondents that the government employee Chhotu Ram died on 15.7.1996 whereas the application for compassionate appointment was submitted by the petitioner after eight years, so also it is submitted that the petitioner is alleged to have been taken on adoption on 8.8.1994 wherein as the transfer certificate which was issued in theyear 1998, father's name of the petitioner has been shown as Mangilal. Therefore, accordingly to the Rules of 1996, the 3 petitioner is not entitled to get appointment on compassionate ground under the Rules of 1996. Hence, it is prayed that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Admittedly, in this case, the government servant late Chotu Ram was working on the post of Helper in the Office of PHED, Circle Nagaur and he died while in service on 15. 7.1996. It is stated by the petitioner that adoption deed was executed whereby the petitioner was taken on adoption by late Chotu Ram and for the first time application for compassionate appointment was filed on 2.8.1996 in which it was stated that at present he is minor, therefore, after attaining majority he may be provided appointment by the respondent Department. The averments made by the petitioner in para No.4 of the writ petition are completely denied by the respondents in their reply. Therefore, admittedly, after attaining age as per petitioner he filed an application for providing appointment on compassionate ground. In my opinion, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground under the Rules of 1996 because the purpose of granting compassionate appointment is to mitigate the financial hardship of the bread earner of the family. Therefore, such appointment is to be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. Here, 4 in this case, the petitioner is claiming his right as adopted son and at the time of his adoption his natural father was alive and in his educational certificate, the name of Mangilal is appearing. Likewise on the date of death of Chotu Ram in the year 1996, admittedly, the petitioner was only 10 years of age and thereafter, he has filed an application after attaining majority, therefore, it cannot be said that during this period, he was living in hardship, so also, the purpose for providing appointment on compassionate ground looses its sanctity by afflux of time. In this case, the claim of the petitioner is that being adopted son of late Chotu Ram who died while in service, therefore, he is entitled for compassionate appointment when he attained age of eighteen years. In this circumstances, obviously, the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, this writ petition suffers from delay and latches, so also, there is no right created in favour of the petitioner after lapse of long time of death of government servant Chotu Ram. Therefore, there is no force in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun