Saajid Khan v. State of Rajasthan Ors. decided on

Judgment

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. The District Education Officer, (Hq) Secondary Education, Alwar (Rajasthan)

4. Government Senior Secondary School, Ghiloth, Neemrana, Alwar through its Principal. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Pradeep Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devansh Sharma, Dy. GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 26/08/2025

1. Although, the matter has come up on Application No.1/2025, however, with the consent of both the parties, the arguments were heard finally.

2. Petitioner has come out with the case that his brother late Shri Anishar Khan was holding substantive post of Senior Teacher Grade-III in Education Department of respondent- Government. However, he expired on 01.08.2019, while he was in service. The petitioner, since is possessing the qualification and eligibility for appointment on the post of LDC, invoked the provisions of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of [2025:RJ-JP:33917] (2 of 6) [CW-12831/2023] Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1996'). However, the application was rejected vide letter dated 09.10.2019 only on account of the fact that as per the definition of 'dependent' contemplated in the Rules of 1996, brother does not come within the category of 'dependent'. Similarly intimation was also given to him on

13.11.2019.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that feeling aggrieved by rejection of his application, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4835/2020 (Saajid Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 02.03.2023). During the pendency of the writ petition, vide notification dated 28.10.2021, definition of 'dependent' was amended by the Government and unmarried brother was also brought within the purview of definition of 'dependent'.

4. In view of the subsequent facts, more particularly enforcement of amendment in the Rules vide notification dated

28.10.2021, the petitioner sought liberty of this Court to submit a representation pursuant to aforesaid notification dated

28.10.2021. Permission sought by the petitioner was granted and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4835/2020 was disposed of vide order dated 02.03.2023 with the directions to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of notification dated 28.10.2021.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of order dated 02.03.2023, petitioner filed representation before the competent authority referring to the [2025:RJ-JP:33917] (3 of 6) [CW-12831/2023] notification dated 28.10.2021 and prayed for granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 31.08.2023 on the ground that the aforesaid amendment in the definition of 'dependent' for including unmarried brother within the category of 'dependent' vide notification dated 28.10.2021 is prospective in nature and cannot be applied retrospectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rules of 1996 is a piece of beneficiary legislation and is objected to provide financial support to the family of a deceased Government servant, who was sole bread earner and on account of his sudden death, the entire family went into financial crises. Therefore, under these circumstances, interpreting the aforesaid amendment only prospective in nature would certainly reduce and narrow down the object of the Rules of 1996 and would frustrate the entire scheme as well as purpose of amendment.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that any amendment brought in the Rules for creating substantive right is always prospective in nature and since prior to

28.10.2021, unmarried brother was not included in the purview of 'dependent' therefore, the respondents have committed no mistake whatsoever in rejecting the application for compassionate appointment submitted by the petitioner. The benefit of notification dated 28.10.2021 shall not be available to the petitioner as death of deceased Government servant in the instant case has taken place prior to the notification. [2025:RJ-JP:33917] (4 of 6) [CW-12831/2023]

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.

8. The only issue for the consideration of this Court in the case is, as to whether benefit of notification dated 28.10.2021, which has admittedly been issued after death of deceased Government servant in the instant case, can be granted to the petitioner or not.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner along with application No.1/2025 has placed judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6001/2022 (Bhupendra Vs. Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.), wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench while considering the similar circumstances, held that the notification dated 28.10.2021 shall be applicable in all those cases, where on the date of notification, either the application of the concerned person was pending before the competent authority or his litigation was pending.

10. In the case of Bhupendra (supra), this Court has taken note of similar circumstances, where the death of the Government servant took place prior to issuance of notification dated 28.10.2021 and feeling aggrieved, the dependent brother filed writ petition before this Court and during pendency of the writ petition, the aforesaid amendment vide notification dated

28.10.2021 came into force and liberty was granted to the petitioner in that case to make a representation and his representation was also rejected on the similar grounds. Thus, the facts and circumstances in the instant case are quite similar to the aforesaid case of Bhupendra (supra). [2025:RJ-JP:33917] (5 of 6) [CW-12831/2023]

11. After considering the earlier judgment of this Court and while giving a purposive interpretation to the Rules of 1996, following observations were made in the case of Bhupendra (supra):- "10. Applying the above analogy/ratio to the present matter, admittedly the application was on the first instance filed by the petitioner soon after the death of the employee. The same was rejected in the month of July 2020 and he challenged the same vide a special appeal before the Division Bench of this Court while also laying a challenge to the provision of Rule 2 (c) of the Rules of 1996. The appeal was disposed of in light of the amendment introduced in the above provision with effect from 28.10.2021. A specific direction for reconsideration of the application of the petitioner was issued by the Division Bench. 11. In the specific opinion of this Court, the analogy as arrived to In Priyanka Shrimali's case would definitely apply to the present matter. Therein the Court specifically observed that the effect of striking out of word 'unmarried' from definition of the term 'dependent' shall apply to cases which were either pending before the Competent Authority and/or to the cases where litigation was pending on the date of the said order. Herein, admittedly, the special appeal laying a challenge of Rule 2 (c) of the Rules of 1996 was pending on 28.10.2021 and hence, the amendment introduced in Rule 2 (c) of the Rules of 1996 with effect from 28.10.2021 would definitely apply to the present matter. The respondents therefore, were under an obligation to decide the application of the petitioner holding him eligible in terms of amended Rule 2 (c) of the Rules of 1996. 12. In view of the above analysis, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order/communication dated 27.01.2022 (Annex.8) is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to process the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment while treating him eligible in terms of Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 being an unmarried brother of an unmarried employee and accord him appointment, if he is otherwise found eligible."

12. In the light of foregoing discussion as well as in view of directions given by this Court in the case of Bhupendra (supra), [2025:RJ-JP:33917] (6 of 6) [CW-12831/2023] the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 31.08.2023 (Annex.-16) passed by the respondents is hereby quashed and set aside.

13. The respondents are directed to further process and the application filed by the petitioner for seeking compassionate appointment, treating him to be dependent in terms of amended provisions of Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 and in case, petitioner is otherwise found eligible, appointment may be given to him. Necessary exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. DIVYA /49 (ANAND SHARMA),J