[2025:RJ-JP:11331] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16248/2013 Raheesa Begum Wife Of Late Shri Haji Fakruddin, Station Road, Kishangarh Renwal, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Director, Agricultural Marketing Board, Krishi Vipanan Nideshalay, Jaipur. 2. Deputy Director, Agriculture Marketing Board, Division Jaipur, Jaipur. 3. The Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kishangarh Ren- wal, District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 11/03/2025 1. The present petition is filed with a prayer seeking direction to the respondents to release family pension in favor of the petitioner with effect from the death of her husband and appoint petitioner on compassionate basis. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the demise of petitioners’ husband i.e., on 05.11.2011, the peti- tioner is entitled for pensionary and consequential benefits along with appointment on compassionate basis. 3. It is further submitted that petitioner has applied for grant of compassionate appointment before the respondents, however, re- spondents vide letter dated 21.02.2013 denied the same to the [2025:RJ-JP:11331] (2 of 3) [CW-16248/2013] petitioner for the reason that husband of the petitioner was not a regular and permanent employee of the respondents. 4. In this regard, it is submitted that the rejection of the re- spondents is arbitrary and illegal as the husband of the petitioner has worked with the respondents since 1982, therefore, has com- pleted approximately 29 Years of service till his death. 5. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, upon perusal of the records, taking note of the fact that whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis caused by the in- stant death of the earning family member. The object is not to give such family a post, much less a post held by the deceased family member. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated in Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and Ors. vs. Anusree K.B. re- ported in AIR 2022 SC 4766, this Court is not inclined to appre- ciate the prayer made for compassionate appointment. 6. Howsoever, qua release of pensionary and consequential benefits, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file detailed repre- sentation before the competent authority, and competent author- ity is directed to consider the same within a period of 30 days from the date of filing, by way of speaking order, strictly in accor- dance with law, in light of the dictum encapsulated in Pawan Meena vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No. 1665/2024) and Circular issued by the Chief Secretary for the State of Rajasthan, dated 19.02.2024. [2025:RJ-JP:11331] (3 of 3) [CW-16248/2013] 7. Additionally, petitioner is at liberty to approach appropriate forum if lis in question qua release of pensionary and consequen- tial benefits still survives. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed with the above said liberty. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J DIKSHA MISHRA /104