Sarwad, Tehsil Sarwad, District Ajmer (Raj.) v. Engineering Department, Rajasthan Jaipur

: Mr. Nikhil Simlote For Respondent(s) : Ms. Minakshi Jain, GC with Ms. Supriya Rana HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 08/05/2025

1. The petitioner has prayed in the instant petition for granting him the compassionate appointment in place of deceased Late Shri Akbar Ali in compliance of award dated 01.05.2006.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that father of the petitioner Late Shri Akbar Ali was engaged as Civil Mistri with respondent No.2, however, his services were illegally terminated by the respondents. Hence, he raised an [2025:RJ-JP:19555] (2 of 5) [CW-9755/2013] industrial dispute which was ultimately referred to the Labour Court for adjudication.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during pendency of the matter before the Labour Court, unfortunately father of the petitioner passed away. However, petitioner along with his mother, brother and sister were substituted as legal representatives of Late Shri Akbar Ali.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Labour Court passed award dated 01.05.2006, whereby while holding the termination of Late father of the petitioner as illegal and improper, directions were given for making payment of lump- sum compensation to the tune of Rs.25000/- to the legal representatives of Late Shri Akbar Ali. It was also observed by the Tribunal that in case it is permissible under the Rules then the respondents may consider for granting compassionate appointment to any other family member of Late Shri Akbar Ali.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that pursuant to aforesaid award, an application was moved by his mother for appointing petitioner on compassionate ground in place of petitioner’s father, who died while in service of the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid application was kept pending by the respondents for as many as five and half years and ultimately the same was rejected vide letter/communication dated 07.08.2012, on the ground that father of the petitioner was simply a daily wager and although Tribunal has held his termination to be invalid, yet on account of not holding any substantive post, dependents of Late Shri Akbar Ali are not entitled for compassionate appointment. [2025:RJ-JP:19555] (3 of 5) [CW-9755/2013]

7. Learned counsel further submits that the reason assigned by the respondents in communication dated 07.08.2012 are totally unjustified and against the scheme of grant of compassionate appointment, which was meant to support the family of such a Government servant, who unfortunately died during service.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus prayed for allowing compassionate appointment to the petitioner pursuant to aforesaid award.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner by raising an objection that the relief claimed by the petitioner for seeking compassionate appointment is totally misconceived and contrary to the scheme of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996. It has also been objected by learned counsel for the petitioner that although vide letter of the communication dated 07.08.2012, the request made on behalf of petitioner for granting compassionate appointment has been rejected, yet such communication/letter is not under challenge in the instant writ petition.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that services of father of the petitioner were never regularized therefore, there was no occasion for the respondents to consider the request made by the petitioner for granting compassionate appointment.

11. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and also examined the record.

12. As per definition of deceased Government servant contemplated in the Rules of 1996 although, any employee [2025:RJ-JP:19555] (4 of 5) [CW-9755/2013] appointed on urgent/temporary basis against regular vacancy, on completion of one year service, can also be treated as deceased Government servant for the purpose of scheme of compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1996, however, in the instant case firstly, father of the petitioner was simply engaged as a daily wager and had worked only for a period of 7 months.

13. It is settled proposition of law that a daily wager does not hold a post and his engagement can never be considered against any regular vacancy. Further, Late father of the petitioner had worked for less than one year, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, benefit of compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1996 could have been granted to the dependents of father of the petitioner.

14. A bare perusal of award dated 01.05.2006 passed by learned Labour Court, it would reveal that the directions for providing compassionate appointment to one of the legal heirs of deceased father of the petitioner are not absolute in nature and such directions are qualified with the words that in case, it is so permissible under the Rules. As discussed hereinabove, clearly Rules do not permit for compassionate appointment of dependents of deceased daily wager, who was never appointed against a clear regular vacancy and had only worked for less than one year.

15. In addition to above, it would also be relevant to mention here that the father of the petitioner passed away on 09.12.2003, and as per the Rules of 1996 (which are otherwise not applicable in the case of the petitioner) the purpose of granting compassionate appointment is to provide immediate support to the bereaved family, which has gone in financial distress on [2025:RJ-JP:19555] (5 of 5) [CW-9755/2013] account of sudden death of sole bread earner in the family. In the instant case where the death of the deceased has taken place on

09.12.2003, even otherwise, benefit of compassionate appointment cannot be sought. It is a trite law that compassionate appointment is not a regular source of appointment and it can be granted only in special emergent circumstances subject to fulfillment of the Rules.

16. In view of above, I find no merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner and the same is hereby dismissed. NEERU/129 (ANAND SHARMA),J