[2025:RJ-JP:4189-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 468/2023 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1578/2020 Ishant Jain S/o Late Shri Mithilesh Kumar Jain, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Narsingh Colony, Kherli, District Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Administrative Secretary, Secondary Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan. 3. District Education Officer (Headquarters), Secondary Education Department, Alwar, Rajasthan. 4. Principal, Government Adarsh Senior Secondary School, Dantiya, (Kathumar), District Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akshit Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. BS Chhaba, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 30/01/2025 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 18.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1578/2020, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. Brief of the case are that the petitioner submitted an application for Compassionate Appointment on account of death of his father, who died on 29.03.2019 while he was in service. The respondents considered the application of the petitioner and rejected the same in view of The Rajasthan Compassionate [2025:RJ-JP:4189-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-468/2023] Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for short “the Rules of 1996”). 3. The application submitted by the appellant/petitioner was rejected on account of the fact that one son of the deceased government employee was already in service since the year 2011 with the Union Bank of India. 4. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition considered the rules relating to the employment and held as under:- “7. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 prescribes certain terms and conditions for getting appointment on compassionate grounds. For ready reference Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 is reproduced as under:- 5. Appointment Subject To Certain Conditions:- (1) When a Government servant dies while in service one of his/her dependants may be considered for appointment in Government service subject to the condition that employment under these rules shall not be admissible in cases where the spouse or at least one of the sons, unmarried daughters, adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter of the deceased Government servant is already employed on regular basis under the Central/any State Government or Statutory Board, Organisation/Corporation owned or controlled wholly or partially by the Central/any State Government at the time of death of the Government servant. Provided that this condition shall not apply where the widow seeks employment for herself. (2) Appointment under these rules shall be given on the condition that the person appointed on [2025:RJ-JP:4189-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-468/2023] compassionate ground shall maintain properly the other family members who were dependant on the deceased Government servant and on furnishing an undertaking in writing that he/she shall maintain properly the other family members who were dependant on the deceased Government servant. If subsequetly, at any time, it is proved that such dependant family members are being neglected or are not being maintained properly by him, the appointment may be terminated by the Appointing Authority after providing an opportunity to the compassionate appointee by way of issue of show cause notice asking him to explain why his services should not be terminated.” 8. Bare perusal of the above rule clearly indicates that when a Government servant died while in service, one of the dependants may apply for getting appointment on the compassionate grounds subject to certain terms and conditions. Aforesaid Rule clearly indicate that if one of the sons of the deceased Government servant is already employed on regular basis under the Central/any State Government or Statutory Board, Organisation/Corporation owned or controlled wholly or partially by the Central/any State Government, then the other son whould not be entitled to get such employment. This rule gives relaxation only in case where the widow of deceased Government servant applied for getting such employment. Since one of the sons of the father of the petitioner i.e. Tarun is already in service hence in view of the Rule 5(1) of the Rules of 1996, the respondents have not committed an error in passing the impugned order dated 17.06.2019 and denying appointment to the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:4189-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-468/2023] 9. This case may be hard case for the petitioner. Though the Court has sympathy with the family members of the deceased, who face the death of the deceased, but sympathy alone cannot be given a remedy to such family members and it is not for the Courts to substantiate a scheme to adopt or subtract from the forum thereof in exercise of in its judicial review.” 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the relevant Rules. 6. We have considered the fact that another son of the deceased government employee was already in service at the time of death of the deceased employee, therefore in view of Rule 5(i) of the Rules of 1996 the respondents have rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner for Compassionate Appointment. 7. In our considered view, no illegality has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. 8. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed. 9. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J sunita/52