Denial of compassionate appointment on fathering third child. Court analyzes rules of Rajasthan compassionate appointment of dependents of deceased governments servant: Rajasthan high court
The Rajasthan High Court passed a judgement on 20-07-2021 in the case of Shankar Lal Meena vs. State of Rajasthan Civil Writ Petition No. 7256/2021. The Honorable Justice Dinesh Mehta dismissed a petition which was filed aggrieved by the denial of compassionate appointment by communication dated 07-01-2020, as he had fathered a third child after the cut-off date i.e., 01-06-2002.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The petitioner’s father was working with the respondent-department and had died in harness on 29-06-2019. In the month of July 2019 the petitioner had applied for an appointment on the compassionate ground under Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of deceased government servant rules, 1996 (‘Rules of 1996’).
His request for a compassionate appointment had been turned down by the respondents as the petitioner had more than two children after the cut off date (01-06-2022).
Mr. Anil Vyas, counsel for the petitioner, argued that the respondents had erred in rejecting petitioner’s candidature, as ineligibility based on number of children has not been provided in the Rules of 1996. He further added that rules of 1996 have an overriding effect on all other rules and thus, disqualifications on account of birth of third child after cut off date cannot be an impediment in petitioner’s child way of getting an appointment under the rules of 1996. It was further argued by Mr. Vyas that the petitioner had given one of his children in adoption on 04-12-2019 and thus, the disqualification, if any, does not continue anymore.
The court slashed down the second contention of petitioner’s child been given in adoption stating that the same had been done on 04-12-2019, concededly after the death of deceased – employee and that too after submitting an application under the rules of 1996 and this was nothing but an attempt to overcome the disqualifications/ineligibility, which was attached with the petitioner. The court further opined that petitioner having been given one child in adoption does not obliterate or remove the disqualification. The disqualification is based on the event or incident of giving birth to a third child. It is not based on the number of living/existing children on the date of submitting application.
The court perused Rule 7 of the Rules of 1996 and firmly held that a dependent must fulfill general conditions prescribed in the relevant service rules to be eligible for appointment and since the petitioner has given birth to a third child after the cut off date, he falls to satisfy general conditions of the rules of 2014.
The court dismissed the petition holding that no illegality had been committed by the respondents rejecting the petitioner’s candidature for appointment on compassionate ground under the rules of 1996.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY CHANDANA SHEKAR