Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 15123 (RAJ)

SMT SUBHADRA DEVI AND ANR v. STATE OF RAJ AND ORS

CW/9358/2005 · 2025-02-13

Sameer Jain

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:7461] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9358/2005 1. Smt. Subhadra Devi W/o Late Shri Bachchraj, 12/107, 2Nd Floor, R.p.a. Quarters, Shashtri Nagar, Jaipur. 2. Amarsingh S/o Late Shri Bachchraj, 12/107, 2Nd Floor, R.p.a. Quarters, Shashtri Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Local Self Government, Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Raj. 2. Director, Local Bodies, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Nagar Parishad, Sri Ganganagar Through Its Commissioner, Sri Ganganagar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Bansal For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 13/02/2025 1. The instant petition is filed with the following prayers:- “i) It is therefore, prayed that this writ pe- tition may kindly be allowed and the respon- dents may be directed to give benefit of fam- ily pension to the petitioner No.1 who is the mother of deceased Sohanlal. ii) that the respondent may further be di- rected to grant appointment to the petitioner No.2 on compassionate ground and the re- spondents be further directed to pay all the dues of deceased Sohanlal to the petitioner No.2 who is nominee of the deceased Sohan- lal. iii) any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deem fit in favour of the petitioner just and proper. iv) that the cost of the writ petition may also kindly be awarded in favour of the peti- tioner.” 2. Heard and considered. [2025:RJ-JP:7461] (2 of 2) [CW-9358/2005] 3. Upon a perusal of the record, it is noted that the death of the family member, against whom compassionate appointment is sought, occurred on 01.01.2003. Thereafter, the instant petition was filed seeking compassionate appointment in the Year 2005. On directions of the Court, the matter has come up on board for hearing today i.e. in the year 2025. Ever since the filing of the instant petition, no active steps were taken by the petitioner for the early listing of the matter. 4. As on date, over 22 years have lapsed since the demise of the earning family member, against whom compassionate employment is sought. If compassionate appointment is made now, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate grounds is provided. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis caused by the instant 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. reported in AIR 2022 SC 4766. 5. As a result, in light of the foregoing observations, the instant petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J Anil Sharma/150