1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8672/04 Dharam Raj vs. State & Anr. Date of order : 20/8/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Arvind Bhardwaj for the petitioner. Shri B.L. Avasthi, Addl. Govt. Counsel for State. Shri N.P. Upadhayay for the respondent. ****** The writ petitioner has challenged the order of respondents dated 16.12.1998 whereby his application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground was dismissed on the ground that such application was not made within 45 days of the death of his father. Shri Arvind Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the father of the petitioner has expired on 21.3.1997 and that he filed this application on 25.7.1998. Thereafter, the respondents demanded Succession Certificate from him. He on 28.4.1998 filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 before 2 the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Kota and submitted that he will get the succession certificate soon and will duly deposit that, but suddenly by order dated 16.12.1998, his application for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the ground of delay. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner could not file the writ petition in time because under a wrong impression, the petitioner went for succession certificate. It was contended that the petitioner's father Gopal who was working as Chowkidar with the respondents, was the only bread earner of the family and five members were totally dependent on him and that with his death, the family has been facing great hardship. The respondents ought to therefore consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and argued that that petitioner has tried to mislead this 3 Court by stating that at the time of death of his father, he was 15 years of age, whereas in the ration card issued on 17.11.1990, his age was shown to be 15 years. The application itself was submitted after more than a year of death. The writ petition has been filed with delay of more than 6 years in the year 2004 whereas the application for compassionate appointment was rejected by order dated 16.12.1998. It was contended that the delay cannot be explained by stating that the petitioner consumed all this time in obtaining succession certificate which was never demanded by the respondents for consideration of his case for grant of compassionate appointment. Law is well settled that the compassionate appointment is demanded and granted in the event of sudden death of the sole bread earner of the family to provide immediate succor to the family at the time of necessity. Not only the 4 petitioner filed the application before the respondents for grant of compassionate appointment after one year and four moths, he has approached this Court six years after the rejection of his claim by the department. In the circumstances, the very purpose for grant of compassionate appointment has ceased to exist. I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/