[2025:RJ-JP:25550] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7530/2018 Arun Kumar S/o Late Shri Ashok Kumar, R/o Shivnagar Pokhra, Behind Chopra Mandir, Dholpur, Distt. Dholpur Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through Managing Director Cum Chairman, Parivan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur Raj. 2. The General Manager (Admn.), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur Raj. 3. The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Dholpur Depot, Distt. Dholpur Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajpal Dhankar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 10/07/2025 1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the communication dated 27.03.2018 (Ann.3), declaring the petitioner as ineligible for appointment on compassionate ground and consequential prayer has also been made to direct the respondents to grant appointment to the petitioner on the post of class IV on compassionate ground in place of his deceased father. 2. The relevant facts of case, in brief, are that petitioner's father was a IV Class employee in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short " RSRTC"). He passed away on [2025:RJ-JP:25550] (2 of 3) [CW-7530/2018] 02.02.2018 while in service. He was survived by his widow, two sons and one daughter. Petitioner is a married son and another son Ravi Kumar was unmarried. In RSRTC, the appointment of compassionate ground is governed by the Dependents of Deceased Employees of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Rules, 2010 (for short "the Rules of 2010"). As per Rules of 2010, in case of death of Class IV employee of Corporation, his widow is eligible to get compassionate appointment, however in the present case, widow of deceased did not apply for compassionate appointment. 3. It appears that the widow of deceased prayed for grant of appointment to her son Arun Kumar. Under the Rules, 2010, prevailing at that point of time, there is no provision to grant compassionate appointment to son of deceased, hence, her son Arun Kumar was declared ineligible for grant of compassionate appointment vide order dated 27.03.2018 (Annx. 3), which has been impugned herein. 4. This Court finds that in the application Annexure-2, the status of petitioner has been indicated as a married son. Indisputably, petitioner was married at the time of death of his father. In the Rules, 2010, the definition of “dependents” as prescribed in Rules, 2010, includes only “an unmarried son”. In this view also, petitioner cannot be treated as dependent of his father and is not eligible to get compassionate appointment in place of his father. [2025:RJ-JP:25550] (3 of 3) [CW-7530/2018] 5. In addition, it is further undisputed that another son of deceased namely Ravi Kumar who is unmarried, is already in Government Job, as reflected from the perusal of Annexure-7. This fact has also been admitted by counsel for the petitioner. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as per the definition of “Dependent”, prescribed in Rules, 2010, petitioner, being a married son, cannot be treated to be dependent upon his father at the time of his death and does not fall in definition of dependent. Another son of deceased, who is unmarried, is already in Government Job and the widow of deceased, never applied for grant of compassionate appointment in terms of Rules, 2010, hence, no case for grant of appointment on compassionate ground is made out in favour of petitioner. The communication dated 27.03.2018 (Annx. 3) does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 7. As a result, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. 8. Stay application and any other pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J TN/120