1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5020/95 Ujjwal Kumar vs. State of Raj. & Ors. Date of order : 21/7/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri H.S. Khandelwal for the petitioner. Shri Hemant Mathur, Dy. Government Counsel for the respondents. ****** This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 3.8.1995 to the extent that petitioner was appointed on the post of work charge employee, that was almost 15 years ago. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a diploma holder in Electronics and therefore he should be appointed on the post of Junior Engineer because he was eligible for such appointment. Further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in spite of the fact that the petitioner was fully eligible for appointment on the post of Junior Engineer, the respondents have illegally appointed him as a work charge employee. The premises on which the 2 petitioner has not been appointed on work charge basis Father of the petitioner was not made permanent, is factually incorrect because his father was made permanent vide order dated 21.8.1979. It is therefore prayed that the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer or any other suitable post. For the meaning of `suitable post', learned counsel relied on the judgement of this Court in Pritam Singh vs. State & Ors.-1995 (3) WLC (Raj.) 659. Shri Hemant Mathur, learned Deputy Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that father of the petitioner died on 4.3.1994. As per the Finance Department Circular dated 28.2.1994, the work charged employees were treated as regular with effect from 1.4.1994. He died before working 10 years and therefore he could not be regularised because of his death. It is contended that though the application of the petitioner was received for appointment on the post of Junior Engineer, but it is the domain of the government to appoint the dependent of the 3 deceased government servant died while in service on any post including on the post of Class IV employee. Learned counsel submitted that no one can complain about the higher post once he has accepted the appointment. The petitioner in the course of time has already been made regular. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that submission of the respondents that father of the petitioner was not declared permanent cannot be accepted in view of the order dated 21.8.1979 which is placed on record at Annexure-1. Such an averment made in para 3 of the writ petition has not been contested by the respondents in their reply of the relevant para. Once it is established that father of the petitioner was made permanent, albeit under the Work Charged Rules vide order dated 21.8.1979, the assertion of the respondents in still not treating him as a regular employee cannot be appreciated. In so far as the Circular of the Government dated 28.2.1994 is concerned in para 2 thereof also it is contended that in the first phase all work 4 charged employees who have rendered ten years continuous and satisfactory service as on 31.12.1993 shall be converted into regular employee with effect from 1.4.1994. While the father of the petitioner qualified the condition having completed ten years continuous and satisfactory service on 11.12.1993, but he did not live to see 1.4.1994, the date on which he was to be treated as regular because unfortunately he died on 4.3.1994. But since the respondents have themselves in recognition of the fact that the father of the petitioner was working with the respondents appointed him on compassionate ground under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servant While Dying Service Rules, 1975, as a work charged employee, there is no reason not to appoint him on regular basis on the post on which he was appointed on work charged basis because compassionate appointment has to be made on regular basis not on work charged / daily wage basis. So far as the contention of the petitioner that he should have been appointed as Jr. Engineer is concerned, in view of the 5 subsequent development, appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right on higher post because it does not depend on the eligibility qualification one holds. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right. It is only by way of benevolence of the government that such appointments are granted to dependents of a family whose sole breadwinner has expired while serving and his family faces the hardship. The Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana-(1994) 4 SCC 138 held that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate assistance to the family of the deceased employee. This being an exception to normal recruitment procedure, compassionate appointment cannot be offered to posts higher than Groups C and D categories. In the result, this writ petition is partly allowed. In so far as the prayer of the petitioner for appointment on higher post, the same is rejected. However, the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as appointed on regular basis by 6 the appointment order dated 3.8.1995 on the post he was actually appointed and grant him all consequential benefits. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/