[2025:RJ-JP:25210] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8631/2023 Surendra Phulwari S/o Shri Kundan Mal, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Opposite Sheetla Mata Temple , Majhela Road , Madanganj -Kishangarh , District - Ajmer (Raj.) Pin 305801 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Through Its Managing Director , Department Of Energy , Government Of Rajasthan , Ajmer (Raj.). 2. The Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Through Secretary (Administration) , A.v.v.n.l. , Ajmer (Raj.) 3. The Superintending Engineer , Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, District - Ajmer (Raj.). 4. The Assistant Engineer , Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Mangrol , District - Chittorgarh Rajasthan . ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vipul Kumar Jaiman For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 08/07/2025 1. By means of filing instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of order dated 12.05.2023, passed by Secretary (Administration) of Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (for short “Nigam”) (Annx.4), denying to grant compassionate appointment to petitioner in place of his unmarried deceased brother and simultaneously has made a prayer for directing the respondents to grant appointment to petitioner on compassionate basis, in place of his unmarried deceased brother. [2025:RJ-JP:25210] (2 of 4) [CW-8631/2023] 2. As per the facts, as culled out from the record, petitioner's elder brother viz. Anil Kumar was posted as Assistant Accounts Officer in Nigam and died unmarried on 20.02.2020. He is survived by his natural father and mother. His father moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment to his younger son Surendra Phulwari, who is the petitioner in the present writ petition. That application was dismissed by the Nigam vide order dated 29.07.2020. Thereagainst, petitioner preferred a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9847/2020. In this writ petition, without quashing the order dated 29.07.2020, the Coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to petitioner to file a Representation before the respondents, to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground. In furtherance thereof, petitioner submitted a Representation, which has been rejected vide order dated 12.05.2023, assigning the reasons that as per the unamended Rajasthan Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (for short, "the Rules of 1996"), petitioner does not fall within the definition of “Dependents” of an unmarried deceased brother, hence, not eligible to get appointment on compassionate ground. The order dated 12.05.2023 (Annx.4) has been put to challenge in the instant writ petition. 3. Undisputedly, the definition of “Dependents”, as envisaged under Rule 2(c) the Rules of 1996, has been amended vide Notification dated 28.10.2021. By virtue of such amendment in Clause 2(c), brother of unmarried deceased brother, if dependent on him, has been included in Clause 2(c)(v) with mother, father [2025:RJ-JP:25210] (3 of 4) [CW-8631/2023] and unmarried sister. Such amended Rule has been adopted by the Nigam vide order dated 02.03.2022. 4. Undisputedly, petitioner's brother Anil Kumar, who was an employee of Nigam died on 20.02.2020, it means prior to the introduction of amendment in Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 w.e.f. 28.10.2021. Thus, it is well evident that on the date of death of deceased employee Anil Kumar, petitioner was not included in the definition of “Dependents” being brother of deceased employee. 5. Further, it is also undisputed that father and mother of petitioner are also alive. It is true that petitioner is unmarried and his brother, deceased-employee of Nigam- Anil Kumar also died unmarried, yet parents of petitioner are admittedly alive, hence, it cannot be assumed that during the lifetime of parents of petitioner, he is dependent on his unmarried deceased brother. Petitioner has not averred any pleadings in respect of having no source of livelihood or income of his parents. 6. In addition, this Court finds that the prayer for compassionate appointment to petitioner has already been declined by the Nigam vide order dated 29.04.2020. That order was challenged by the petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9847/2020, but was not quashed. The order remained effective, operative and valid in law. In the present writ petition, petitioner has not assailed the order dated 29.07.2020, nor has placed a copy of that order on record rather the respondent has placed the copy of that order along with the reply as Annx.R/1. Thus the order dated 29.07.2020 has attained finality and cause of action arising therefrom was raised by petitioner in first writ petition. Mere passing of order again on similar line, does not give [2025:RJ-JP:25210] (4 of 4) [CW-8631/2023] rise to a fresh cause of action to petitioner, moreso when petitioner has not challenged the basic order dated 29.07.2020. 7. The net outcome of discussion and enunciation, made hereinabove, is that, this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer of petitioner in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is bereft of merits and same is hereby dismissed. 9. Stay application, or any other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J RONAK JAIMAN/245