1

In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan

Jaipur Bench
**
DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.1268/2012
Date of Order

:::

28/11/2014

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Veerendr Singh Siradhana
Ms. Gayatri Rathore, for appellant.
Mr. Ganesh Sharma for
Ms. Anuradha Upadhyaya, for respondent.
Instant appeal is directed against the order of ld. Single
Judge

dt.22.8.2012.

However,

the

appellant

is

seeking

compassionate appointment not on account of death of her

father, however, the fact is that her father was in service of
the respondent died while in service and brother of the present
appellant

Bhupendra

Singh

was

given

compassionate

appointment on the post of Helper Grade-II vide order

dt.2.5.2008 but unfortunately he too died due to electrical
accident on 22.8.2009.
The respondent Board in its 145th meeting held on
15.12.2010 made certain amendment and the definition of
dependent govt. servant was notified vide order dt.31.12.2010
and it was stipulated that if the first dependent who was
appointed on compassionate basis died within five years of
appointment due to electrical accident while performing duties,
the second dependent may be considered for appointment, if
the first dependent died due to electrical accident was

unmarried or if married had no dependent.

The appellant, as alleged, in the affidavit claiming herself
to be second dependent of the deceased who happens to be
her father and died while in service.
It is alleged by the appellant that the application was
submitted on 23.9.2009 in the office of the Executing Engineer
at Jhunjhunu, however, the prescribed application form filled
by the appellant & placed on record indicates that the
application form was submitted by her on 20.9.2011 and
indisputably

the

appellant

got

married

prior

thereto

in

February, 2010 and accordingly the application came to be

rejected by the authorities vide order dt.24.7.2012 on the
premise that

the appellant cannot be considered to be

dependent of the deceased being a married daughter.

Main thrust of submission of counsel for appellant even
before the ld. Single Judge was that the application was
submitted by her after death of her brother on 23.9.2009 and
she

got

married

in

February

2010.

Thus,

fact

of

her

matrimonial status after submission of application form would

not deprive her in seeking compassionate appointment and she
deserves to be considered as one of the dependent member of
the deceased family for compassionate appointment and
rejection of her application by the respondent authority vide
order dt.24.7.2012 on the premise that being sister of the
dependent is not eligible to seek compassionate appointment,

is not legally sustainable.

Counsel submits that the finding which has been recorded
by the ld. Single Judge in holding that she could not be
considered to be a dependent member of the family of the
deceased and denial of compassionate appointment is not in
conformity of Scheme of Rules, 1996 and so also the definition
of dependent which has been modified by the respondent
authority vide its order dt.31.12.2010 is to be looked into on
the date when the application was originally furnished and
change of matrimonial status at later date may not be relevant
for the purpose for examining her eligibility for compassionate
appointment and thus the ld. Single Judge failed to consider in
the right perspective her claim for compassionate appointment
under the Scheme of Rules which was prevalent at the relevant
time when the application was furnished by her.
The submission has been considered by the ld. Single
Judge at length and we too find no justification in the
submission made and is also bereft of merit for the reason that
from the material which has come on record, the claim of the
appellant of submission of application dt.23.9.2009 cannot be
taken at its face value for the reason that the application is
always to be furnished in the prescribed form and indisputably
was filled by herself on 20.9.2011 and prior thereto she got
married in February, 2010 and either in terms of Rules 1996 or
as per notification dt.31.12.2010 being a married daughter of

the deceased employee cannot be considered to be dependent

member of the deceased family and this what the ld. Single
Judge also considered while rejecting the contention advanced
by counsel for appellant under order impugned.
We have also considered the submissions made and do
not find any error which may require interference of this Court.
Consequently, the appeal is wholly devoid of merit and
accordingly dismissed.

[Veerendr Singh Siradhana), J.

[Ajay Rastogi], J.

dsr/-

"All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed"
Datar Singh
P.S.