1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 408 of 2008 DAYAKAR V/S J.V.V.N. LTD. JODHPUR & ORS Mr. BK BHATNAGAR, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. MANOJ BHANDARI, for the respondent Date of Order : 27.1.2009 HON'BLE SHRI AM KAPADIA,J. HON'BLE SHRI SANGEET LODHA,J. ORDER ----- Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 27th March 2008, rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8486 of 2007 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed and thereby prayer to issue direction to the respondents to consider his case for preferential employment under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying while in Service Rules, 1975 (for shot, 'the Rules') has been refused. Father of the appellant was in service of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board as Helper and he died while in service on 16.02.1980. The appellant at the relevant time was minor and he on acquiring majority moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground with 2 the respondent company viz., Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited i.e. the successor of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board. Since the appellant was not provided appointment, therefore, he filed the writ petition which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge, giving rise to this intra-court appeal. We have heard the submissions advanced by both the learned counsel. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that under the Rules an option was available to the appellant to seek employment on compassionate ground on acquiring majority and therefore, respondent company should have employed the appellant. According to us, aforesaid contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is not well founded inasmuch as the appointment on compassionate ground being an exception carved out to the relevant recruitment rules governing the public employment to meet a particular contingency, cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is the admitted position on record that the father of the appellant died in the year 1980 and since then about three decades have passed. Suffice it to say that the family of the deceased employee has survived all these years without any such help being extended. Undisputably, appointments 3 on compassionate ground are accorded to extend immediate succor to the bereaved family, therefore, at this stage when crisis period is over, the denial of compassionate appointment to the appellant by the respondents appears to be absolutely justified. In this view of the matter, according to us, learned Single Judge has committed no illegality in passing the impugned order requiring interference by this Court in this intra-court appeal. Seen in the above context, appeal lacks merit, deserves to be dismissed. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. No orders as to costs. ( SANGEET LODHA ),J. ( AM KAPADIA ),J. JPA