CW 12647/09 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.12647/2009 Vasudev Jhakhar Versus State & Ors Date of Order ::: 28/10//09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Mukesh Agrawal, for petitioner Petitioner claims himself to be son of deceased Harphool Singh who got injured while serving in Army during Indo-Pak Conflict 1971 causing grievous injuries on his right lower limb sustaining 60% permanent disability making him incapable & unsuitable of alternate job – on the premise whereof, his father was discharged from army service on 06/06/1978 and later on died on 22/01/2008. As alleged, deceased army personnel was having three major sons – two of them are already working in army while petitioner is his third son, who filed application seeking compassionate appointment under Rajasthan Various Services (Amendment) Rules, 2002 (“Rules, 2002”) framed U/Art.309 of the Constitution giving effect from 01/04/99 vide notification dt.01/10/02 (Ann.4). Such Rules were incorporated with an object that those having served for the Nation, either died or being permanently disabled, one of their family CW 12647/09 //2// members may be provided with compassionate employment on account of loss having been caused to the family of army personnel so that they should not suffer any financial distress, the Scheme of Rules was introduced to provide employment. Rules, 2002 (supra) have been carved out as an exception mandatorily requiring that any appointment in public office is to be made in consonance with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, as any appointment, even on temporary or adhoc basis if found to be violative of said provisions of the Constitution would remain unenforceable being invalid. However, present Rules, 2002 have been made to mitigate financial hardship of the grieved family which has lost its bread-earner or become incapable to earn for their livelihood, as an exception to provisions of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. However, application submitted by petitioner seeking appointment under Rules, 2002 was rejected by respondents vide order dt. 02/09/09 (Ann.7) on the premise that two of his brothers were already serving in Army since 24/08/96 and 02/02/97 respectively; as such he cannot now be considered as an eligible CW 12647/09 //3// dependent for compassionate employment. Main thrust of Counsel is that under the scheme of Rules, 2002 eligibility for the purposes of providing employment to one of the family members of deceased or disabled army personnel has to be looked into as on the date of death or sustaining permanent disability of army personnel. While petitioner's father sustained permanent disability during Indo-Pak conflict, 1971, indisputably no one from his family was in employment at relevant point of time; as such he is entitled for employment under Rules, 2002. Submission made by Counsel is having no substance for the reason that Rules, 2002 came into force w.e.f. 01/04/1999 and one of family members of deceased or disabled army personnel could be considered for employment on compassionate ground. R.2 clearly contemplates that dependent will be considered for appointment while no member of the family is in employment in the Central Government and R.3 only postulates to consider eligibility for seeking employment but it has to be looked into on the date when the Rules came into force. In instant case, Rules, 2002 came into force w.e.f. 01/04/99 and both the brothers of CW 12647/09 //4// petitioners were got employment in Army on 24/08/96 & 02/02/97 much prior to Rules, 2002 came into force; as such petitioner could not considered to be eligible dependent seeking employment under Rules, 2002. Consequently, writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.4/ 12647CW09Oct28-DsCmpsAptt.doc