HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13354/2014 Manendra Singh s/o late Shri Govind singh, aged 31 years, R/o VPO Manjhi, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Land Settlement Commissioner Rajasthan Jaipur. 3. The Land Settlement Officer, Ajmer ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Goyal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Joshi, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 17/03/2025 1. The present petition is filed assailing the inaction of the respondents, whereby, they have rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. 2. Upon perusal of the Court file it is noted that in the first round of litigation, respondents were directed to consider the representation filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioners’ father had died in the Year 2009, thereafter, the petitioner had filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment. 4. It is further submitted that the respondent vide order dated 05.09.2014 (Annexure-13), rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that eldest heir of the deceased was serving in VSF before 22.06.2010, therefore, younger son- (2 of 3) [CW-13354/2014] petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment as per the Rule 5 of The Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996. 5. Further, it is submitted that brother of the petitioner was given up for adoption in the Year 2000, therefore, denying compassionate appointment to the petitioner in view of the circular dated 26.08.2006 is illegal and arbitrary. 6. Lastly, reliance is placed upon ratio enunciated in the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Mst. Param Pal Singh vs. M/s. National Insurance Co. and Anr., reported in AIR 2013 Supreme Court 974, wherein, it is held that registration of adoption deed is inconsequential. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that while filing application for the grant of compassionate appointment along with the affidavit, the petitioner failed to mention the name of his elder brother- Pushpendra Singh, whose name is recorded in the service record of the deceased, resultant to which department rejected the application of the petitioner. 7. Further, it is submitted that as per the circular dated 26.08.2006, an employee is required to promptly inform the office/department about any changes in the number of family members, therefore, failure to inform the department about such changes resulted in rejection of the application of the petitioner. 8. It is further submitted that vide order dated 07.09.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge, wherein, it is held that petitioner shall be considered elder successor only after registration of the adoption deed of the Pushpendra Singh. (3 of 3) [CW-13354/2014] 9. Further, it is submitted that adoption deed of the petitioners’ brother was registered in the Year 2010 i.e., after the demise of the father. 10. Heard and considered. 11. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, upon perusal of the records, this Court has made the following observations:- 11.1. That the present is filed in the Year 2014. 11.2. That father of the petitioner has died in the Year 2009. 11.3. That department is not apprised with the number of family members of the deceased in a timely manner. 11.4. That as per the circular dated 26.08.2006, the employee has to inform about the change in the number of family members in a timely manner to the department. 12. Relying 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 and taking note of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the present petition. 13. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J Diksha/375