1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3865/2006 (Fyaaz Mohd. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) Date of order : 22.8.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Vinod Purohit, for the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In this case, wife of petitioner died while in service on 7.4.2003. Thereafter, one FIR was filed against the petitioner, his mother, sister and brothers for committing offence under Sections 498-A, 306 and 120-B I.P.C. After usual investigation, challan was filed and after due trial, learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 11.5.2004 acquitted the petitioner as well other family members from the offences alleged against them. Meaning thereby, the petitioner was acquitted by the charges levelled against him although while granting benefit of doubt. After acquittal, the petitioner was allowed family pension and other retiral benefits of late Smt. 2 Rashida Begam while treating him legal successor of Late Rashida Begam. After acquittal, petitioner filed an application for providing appointment on compassionate ground being husband of late Rashida Begam. The contention of petitioner is that after acquittal of the charges levelled against him by competent criminal Court, when pensionary benefits were released while treating petitioner as legal successor of late Rashida Begam, then, respondents were under obligation to consider entitlement of the petitioner for providing compassionate appointment but the said claim of the petitioner for providing compassionate appointment has been denied on the ground that a FIR was registered against him for committing offence under Sections 498-A, 306 and 120-B I.P.C. The said reason is totally untenable because the respondent – Education Department released all the retiral benefits to the petitioner after acquittal from the charges levelled against him although while granting benefit of doubt but at the same time, the respondents were under obligation to consider the application filed by the petitioner for providing appointment on compassionate ground while ignoring the fact that a case was registered against the petitioner in which he was acquitted. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the denial of respondents to provide appointment on compassionate ground is not on good 3 footings because all the retiral benefits were released to the petitioner after his acquittal from the trial Court. Therefore, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible and falls within the criteria for providing compassionate appointment under the Rules then the respondents are under obligation to consider the application of the petitioner while ignoring the fact that F.I.R. was filed agianst him for committed offence under Sections 498-A, 306 and 120-B I.P.C. in which the petitioner was acquitted from the criminal Court. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned letters dated 15.10.2005 and 26.10.2005 Annexure-10 and 11 respectively are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner for providing appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with Rules while ignoring the fact that F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner and thereafter the trial court acquitted the petitioner from the charges, may be on the basis of benefit of doubt. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun