Of Village Narayan Katata, Tehsil Deeg. District Bharatpur (Raj.) v. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief

Judgment

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief Secretary, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Behind Nehru Palace, Lal Kothi, Jaipur.

3. The Deputy Inspector General Of Police Recruitment And Promotion Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur, Police Headquarter, Behind Nehru Palace, Lal Kothi, Jaipur.

4. The Superintendent Of Police, Bharatpur District Bharatpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Tanveer Ahamad, Mr. Arshad Khan Mr. Aditya Bhatt For Respondent(s) : Ms. Karishma Soni on behalf of Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 03/04/2025

1. Feeling aggrieved by letter dated 27.02.2023 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur to Superintendent of Police, District Bharatpur, whereby the application for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner was not entertained on account of making application with delay, copy of the aforesaid letter was also endorsed to the petitioner, petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the [2025:RJ-JP:15168] (2 of 5) [CW-17841/2023] Constitution of India and is seeking direction against the respondents to grant him compassionate appointment.

2. Brief facts of the case are that father of the petitioner late Shri Balveer Singh was holding the post of Constable in Police Department, who died in a road accident on 03.08.1994 while he was in service in Police Department. Petitioner has stated in memo of writ petition that although the actual date of birth of the petitioner is 06.06.1994 yet on account of some error it was wrongly recorded as 25.11.1995 in his records. At the time of death of his father, he was not even born, however, on attaining the age of majority in the year 2013, he filed S.B.C.W.P. No. 8569/2013 for seeking correction of date of Birth, which was disposed of vide order dated 27.01.2014 with liberty to the petitioner to make representation to the respondents and in case of representation, respondents were directed to consider and decide the same.

3. The petitioner further stated that later on he had filed one another writ petition bearing S.B.C.W.P. No. 2262/2016 against the Board of Secondary Education for seeking rectification in his date of birth which was also disposed of by this Court vide order dated 13.09.2017.

4. The petitioner has further stated that as there was discrepancy in his date of birth, therefore, he continued to represent the authorities for making correction in his date of birth.

5. After expiry of around 28 years from the date of death of father of the petitioner, which took place on 03.08.1994, the petitioner submitted an application form in the year 2022, which was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police Recruitment and [2025:RJ-JP:15168] (3 of 5) [CW-17841/2023] Promotion Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur to the Superintendent of Police, District Bharatpur vide letter dated 23.02.2022 for consideration and for sending factual comments. However, vide letter dated 27.02.2023, the application form submitted by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was returned back by not entertaining the application on the ground of delay.

6. The respondents filed reply to the writ petition wherein serious objections were taken with regard to relief claimed by the petitioner, as the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was suffering from inordinate delay of around 27 years, 7 months and 25 days. It has been stated in the reply to the writ petition that after such a long time, application for grant of compassionate appointment cannot be permitted and hence, the same has rightly been rejected.

7. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties at bar and also perused the material available on record.

8. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that although there was delay of more than 27 years in submitting the application form for grant of compassionate appointment, yet the reasons for not submitting application within time were totally bonafide, however, such reasons were not even examined by the respondents while dealing with his application for compassionate appointment. It has been stated that after death of father of the petitioner, there is no bread earner in the family and on account of there being no sufficient means to maintain the family, the petitioner is suffering a lot.

9. Per contra, it has been submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the application for compassionate appointment [2025:RJ-JP:15168] (4 of 5) [CW-17841/2023] filed by the petitioner after such a long time is totally misconceived and the respondents have rightly rejected the same.

10. It is settled proposition of law that compassionate appointment is not a regular source of recruitment and the fundamental object of compassionate appointment is to tide over the abrupt financial crisis arose in the family on account of sudden death of the sole bread earner. In the instant case, death of the deceased Government Servant took place on 03.08.1994 and the application has been preferred by the petitioner in the year 2022 with a delay of more than 27 years. Thus, under these circumstances, the respondents were justified in not favorably considering the request of grant of compassionate appointment.

11. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana reported in 1994 (4) SCC 138 that the request for compassionate appointment cannot be made with inordinate delay and delay in such matter is fatal.

12. In the case of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. Vs. Anusree K.B. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1331, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has examined the object of grant of compassionate appointment and has categorically held that the scheme of compassionate appointment is objected to immediately support the bereaved family from sudden financial hardship and therefore, such request for compassionate appointment after a long delay.

13. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the respondents have not faulted in rejecting the request made by the [2025:RJ-JP:15168] (5 of 5) [CW-17841/2023] petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

14. Hence, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

15. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pcg/520 (ANAND SHARMA),J