Ashok Kumar Gaur, J.:— The petitioner who is son of late Shri. Devi Singh has filed the present writ petition for seeking a direction to give him compassionate appointment as his father died on 18th February, 2017, while he was working in the Agricultural Department. Regional Deputy Director of Department of Agriculture vide order dt. 26 May, 2017, rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that one of the son of deceased was already employed in 6 Batalian RAC on permanent basis. It was communicated that as per Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 claim of the petitioner cannot be considered for appointment.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the already employed brother of the petitioner does not take care of the family members after death of their father and as such petitioner's right cannot be defeated to look after his mother and other family members. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the purpose of giving compassionate appointment is being defeated by taking such hyper-technical view of the matter. Counsel submits that the mother of the petitioner is not dependent on the brother who is already employed and he does not keep with him and as such he is entitled for appointment.
3. The Court finds that the impugned order dt. 26 May, 2017 has been issued in view of Rule 5 of the Rules 1996. The Department is not under obligation to offer compassionate appointment, if one of the member of the family is already employed. The non-maintenance of mother of the petitioner by her one of the son, cannot be a ground to offer compassionate appointment to the petitioner.
4. The Court finds that in response to notice for demand of justice, seeking compassionate appointment, the respondents have already informed by their reply to that the mother of the petitioner i.e deceased's wife can always apply as per Rules and if she does so, her case may be considered by the Competent Authority for compassionate appointment.
5. The Court finds that as far as the petitioner's right for seeking compassionate appointment is concerned, the same is not tenable in the eye of law.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.
Comments