1 Sunil Kataria Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2889/1995) Dated : 08.04.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. R.N. Upadhyay, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Rathore, Deputy Government Counsel, for the respondents. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought direction against the respondents to appoint him on the post of Assistant Engineer on compassionate ground, on and from date he was appointed as Junior Engineer. It is further prayed that for the aforesaid purpose if considered necessary, order dated 19.5.95 issued by the Chief Engineer, Department of Irrigation, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, appointing the petitioner as Junior Engineer may be declared invalid and may be quashed. 2. The brief facts relevant to the controversy involved in the present writ petition are that the petitioner's father was employed as Executive Engineer in the respondent Department died while in service on 8.12.88. After death of his father, the petitioner completed his graduation in engineering and applied for being considered for appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer as 2 per the provisions of Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants ( Dying while in Service) Rules, 1975 (in short 'the Rules of 1975' hereinafter). Aggrieved by non consideration of his candidature for appointment on the suitable post in accordance with the Rules of 1975, the petitioner preferred a writ petition No.5180/94 before this Court, which was allowed vide order dated 3.4.95, and the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner and give him appointment in accordance with the rules and circular on appropriate post within a period of one month from the placement of order before the authority concerned. It appears that initially the recommendations were made by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department to the Secretary, Irrigation Department for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground on the post of Assistant Engineer. However, vide communication dated 4.5.95, Deputy Secretary, Department of Irrigation, Government of Rajasthan, informed the Chief Engineer, Department of Irrigation that in compliance of the directions issued by the High Court the Department of Personnel has given its concurrence for appointment of the 3 petitioner herein on the post of Junior Engineer. Accordingly, vide order dated 19.5.95, the petitioner was accorded appointment on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the pay scale 1400-2600. In pursuance of aforesaid order, the petitioner joined his duties. It is stated that the petitioner joined the duties under protest, however, the letter said to have been submitted by the petitioner at the time of joining stating that his accepting the appointment under the protest, has not been placed on record. It is stated that the Superintendent Engineer declined to give appointment to the petitioner, if he insisted on making such application. It is contended by the petitioner that as per provisions of the Rules of 1975, the respondents were required to accord him appointment commensurate with his educational qualification, therefore, he was entitled to be appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer. The petitioner has also quoted the instances wherein the person holding the degree in engineering were accorded appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel that though the petitioner has joined the service on the post of Junior Engineer, yet as per the provisions of the Rules of 1975, the 4 respondents are under an obligation to consider his candidature for appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer w.e.f the date he was appointed as Junior Engineer. The learned counsel submitted that when simiarly situated persons have been accorded promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer, the petitioner cannot be picked up for different treatment being given. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the appointment accorded to the respondent is in conformity with the provisions of Rules of 1975 and he is not entitled to be considered for appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer. Relying upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'State of Rajasthan Vs. Shri Umrao Singh' (1994) 6 SCC 560, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner having accepted the appointment on the post of Junior Engineer, his right to claim appointment on compassionate ground stands consummated and he cannot claim further or second consideration for appointment on higher post. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 5 6. It is to be noticed that the Rules of 1975 have been framed so as to extend an immediate succor to the bereaved family of the deceased government servant, who has died in harness. The appointment on compassionate ground an exception carved out to the relevant recruitment rules governing the public employment to meet particular contingency cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 7. In the matter of “Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, [1994(4)SCC 138], Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that “The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is future, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the faimly.” The Hon'ble Court further observed “the compassionate 6 employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which 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 breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” In the matter of Umrao Singh's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that after acceptance of appointment on a particular post, the right to be considered for the appointment on compassionate ground shall stand consummated, otherwise it would be a case of “endless compassion”. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'State of Haryana Vs. Naresh Kumar Bali' (1994) 4 SCC 448. It is to be noticed that the petitioner's father expired on 8.12.88 and the petitioner was accorded appointment on the post of Junior Engineer vide order dated 19.5.95. The appointment on compassionate ground are offered to the dependent of the 7 deceased government servant to extend immediate help and obviously that crisis period is over. Moreover, the petitioner having accepted the appointment without any protest his right to claim appointment under the Rules of 1957, stands consummated and he cannot be permitted to claim consideration afresh for appointment on higher post on compassionate ground. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA), J.