CW 5808/08 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5808/08 Shravan Kumar Versus RSRTC & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 02/07/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Gajendra Vyas, for petitioner *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner claiming compassionate appointment on account of death of his adopted father Late Shri Badri Narayan who was serving Corporation at the time of his death. It has come on record that so called alleged adopted father Late Shri Badri Narayan died on 12th October, 1988 while in service and petitioner's date of birth is 18th December, 1988 that he was born after death of his adopted father. Adoption deed has also been registered somewhere in 2002 and after he attained majority application was filed on his behalf claiming compassionate appointment which has been rejected by the Corporation by passing a detail order Ann.4 dated 27th September, 2007 in which it has been observed that application is ordinarily to be submitted in 90 days under the Rules, 1996 and apart from it, there is no documentary evidence on record which can prima facie satisfy about the fact that he is adopted by deceased which fact is now made clear on the statement made by petitioner himself that he was born after death of deceased and application has also been submitted after attaining majority i.e. almost 18 years after death of deceased. However, CW 5808/08 [2] compassionate appointment Rules, 1996 have been made to mitigate financial hardship of the grieved family which has lost its bread-winner, as an exception to the provisions of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. Object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over sudden crisis. Mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. Consideration of such employment is otherwise not vested right. The compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered at any later point of time or the crisis is over. In Umesh Nagpal Vs State of Haryana (1994(4) SCC 138) the Apex Court held grant of compassionate appointment after lapse of reasonable period is impermissible. In such circumstances, this court does not find any error committed by the Corporation in rejecting his claim for compassionate appointment under order impugned. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA5808CW2008 2-7.doc