The High Court of Rajasthan (Jodhpur Bench) dismissed the special appeal and upheld the order of the single judge bench directing consideration of the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment and also observed that merely because the parents had obtained a divorce, the status of the petitioner as a dependent son cannot be negated.
The case arose from the application filed by the petitioner after the death of his father, a government employee, for compassionate appointment on November 6, 2006, within the prescribed timeframe. The department has asked him to get the succession certificate from the competent court, but even after obtaining the certificate, his case was not considered. Aggrieved thereby, he preferred a writ petition, which was allowed by the single judge via order dated January 18, 2017.
Assailing the said order, the state canvassed that after the divorce between the petitioner’s parents, the petitioner has been residing with his mother and therefore ceased to be dependent on his father. It was also canvassed that the petitioner is now about 39 years of age and therefore did not deserve a compassionate appointment. On the other hand, the respondent submitted that the petitioner had approached the court within time and the divorce between the parents would not render the petitioner non-dependent upon his father under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (the Rules of 1996).
Hearing the appeal, the bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu observed that Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 makes it clear that a “son” is expressly included within the definition of “dependent.” The court also held that merely because of divorce between the parents, the status of the petitioner as a son of the deceased government servant cannot be negated. Further, the court noted that the petitioner had applied within a month of the death of his father, and the delay occurred due to administrative processes and due to the pendency of the litigation in the court, and the same could not be attributed to him.
Upon finding no error in the judgment of the single judge, the court has dismissed the present special appeal filed by the state.
Appearance:
For Appellant: AAG Praveen Khandelwal
For Respondent: Advocate Varda Ram Choudhary and Advocate Naresh Kumar Kumhar
