SBCWP NO.2068/02. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2068/2002. Savita Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order : February 06, 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Mahendra Shah for the petitioner. Shri Zakir Hussain, Additional Government Counsel. **** BY THE COURT :- This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the action of the respondents in not providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 2) Shri Mahendra Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that husband of the petitioner was appointed on a Class-IV post by the order of the respondents dated 30/3/1988 in the regular pay scale. He was appoined in Government Ayurvedic Hospital Mubarakpur. His services were illegal termianted while when he challenged the action of the respondents. Aforesaid order was decreed but subsequently in first appeal, judgment & order passed SBCWP NO.2068/02. 2 by the trial court was set-aside. Her husband during his lifetime filed second appeal before this court being SBCWP No.5282/98 in which operation of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court was set-aside and the second appeal is still pending. Her husband has died on 14/4/2000 leaving behind him, his wife-the petitioner widow and two minor daughters. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner applied for compassionate appointment but respondent did not adhere to the same. She even served a notice for demand of justice but that was also not responded. It is therefore prayed that the respondents be directed to consider case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that stand of the respondent that husband of the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis, cannot be accepted because petitioner was appointed in the physically handicapped category. 3) Shri Zakir Hussain, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that husband of the petitioner was appointed on the post of Class-IV vide order dated 30/3/1988 and his services were terminated vide order dated 25/5/1990. He was issued appointment orders from time to time but last appointment order was issued on 30/3/1990 for a period of one year and immediately thereafter same was cancelled vide order dated 25/5/1990 because there was no sanctioned post. SBCWP NO.2068/02. 3 Respondents have disputed that appointment of the petitioner was made in physically handicapped quota. When the matter was approached to the court, the court of learned Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate initially decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner but in appeal filed by the respondents, her husband failed to prove validity of certificate of handicape. Presently, the matter is pending in second appeal before this court. It was argued that husband of the petitioner could not be appointed and could not be continued in service because he was not a substantive employee. There was therefore no question of giving her compassionate appointment. 4) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material, I find that respondents terminated the services of the late husband of the petitioner w.e.f. 25/5/1990 though initially his suit was decreed but in appeal, judgment & order of the trial court was reversed. He was reinstated and only on the strength of the stay order passed by this court. The appointment of the petitioner's husband was made in physically handicapped quota and respondents are even disputing whether he was handicapped. They are also disputing that there is no permanent substantive post therefore his services were terminated. The reinstatement of the petitioner's husband was on the basis of the stay order passed by this court. SBCWP NO.2068/02. 4 5) In view of such nature of appointment which is regularly being disputed by the respondents being parties to the litigating suit, action of the respondents in not providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner cannot be fauled. Even otherwise, husband of the petitioner died on 14/4/2000 and at this distinct of time, no direction can possibly be given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for giving compassionate appointment. 6) The writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil