[2025:RJ-JP:36755] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11874/2025 Neeraj Son Of Late Shri Sunil Kumar, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of Village Meharda, Gurjarwas, Post Nagaliya Gurjarwas, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Law, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. District And Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Omveer Singh Saini HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 10/09/2025 1. Aggrieved by order dated 24.10.2024 issued by the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur, whereby application for grant of compassionate appointment filed by the petitioner has been rejected, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his father Late Sh. Sunil Kumar, was holding the post of Stenographer Gr.-III in the office of respondent, who died in harness on 15.08.2024, leaving the entire family in financial distress. In order to tide over the family from the crisis, the petitioner submitted application for seeking compassionate appointment under the provisions of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (for [2025:RJ-JP:36755] (2 of 7) [CW-11874/2025] short, 'the Rules of 1996'). The application has been rejected vide order dated 24.10.2024 on the ground, that brother of the petitioner, who was also one of the son of Late Sh. Sunil Kumar, is already employed and is substantively holding a post in Air Force. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that although his brother is employed in Air Force, yet he is maintaining his own nuclear family and his employment does not give any financial support to the family of the petitioner. Therefore, under these circumstances, where there is no bread- runner in the family, instead of rejecting the application filed by the petitioner and looking to the object of Scheme of compassionate appointment, the petitioner ought to have been granted compassionate appointment, so that he can support and maintain his family. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996, lays down as under: ".....5. Appointment subject to certain conditions:- (1) When a Government servant dies while in service one of his/her dependents 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 or at the time of appointment of the dependent.” Provided that this condition shall not apply where the widow seeks employment for herself. [2025:RJ-JP:36755] (3 of 7) [CW-11874/2025] (2) Appointment under these rules shall be given on the condition that the person appointed on compassionate ground shall maintain properly the other family members who were dependent on the deceased Government Servant and on furnishing an undertaking in writing that he/she shall maintain properly the other family members who were dependent on the deceased Government Servant. If subsequently, at any time, it is proved that such dependent 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." 6. The issue, as to whether on account of employment of any other member in the family, the other unemployed person of the family can seek compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1996 or not, more particularly, when the family member already employed is residing separate from the joint family, has already been considered by this Court in the case of Bunti Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5628/2024 decided on 08.05.2025, in which following observations have been given: "......15. Mere reading of aforesaid Rule 5 would make it clear that there is clear and absolute prohibition against granting compassionate appointment in the case where any of the dependent of deceased government servant is already in employment with the government organization or corporation etc. 16. In the instant case, the petitioner’s brother-Sandeep is already in the employment of Municipal Board, Bhawanimandi. Hence, under these circumstances, it is clear that request of the petitioner to seek compassionate appointment for herself is totally against the plain language of the Rules of 1996. It is no longer res-integra that a compassionate appointment is not a regular source of employment and such rules have been in framed by the respondents government only to meet out an emergent [2025:RJ-JP:36755] (4 of 7) [CW-11874/2025] situation, where any government servant unfortunately dies while in service and on account of his sudden death, the entire family has gone under grave financial calamity. However, such Rules are not meant for the persons/family, where there is already an alternative source to support the financial need of the family. 17. It is also settled preposition of law, that Rules are framed while taking into account the general situation and condition prevailing in the society. This Court has all sympathies with the petitioner, yet for the purpose of seeking relief in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a person knocking the doors, has an obligation to show infringement of his statutory or fundamental right. However, in the instant petition, where statutory Rule is apparently against the petitioner no relief can be granted to her in the instant writ petition. 18. So far as the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in case of Jaswant Singh, Sunita Parcha, Gungun, Asha Devi, Sushila (supra) are concerned, this Court was examining the definition of ‘dependent’ prescribed under Rule 2 (C) of the Rules of 1996. While examining such Rules, principle of purposive construction was taken into account in order to maintain gender equality by granting the same benefits to the daughter, which are given to the son under the Rules. It has been held that when married son has not been ousted from the definition of ‘dependent’, then such benefit cannot be denied to a married daughter while interpreting the term ‘daughter’. This Court further broadened definition of dependent by including ‘married daughter’ as well as ‘daughter in law’ and ‘widow daughter’ in such definition. As such above judgments, where by applying the principle of perposive construction of beneficial piece of legislation, the definition of ‘dependent’ was interpreted in a particular manner by this Court, the petitioner cannot take any help of such judgments. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner in Sunita Dhawan vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (supra) delivered in altogether different facts and circumstances of the case and therefore, is distinguishable. 19. Moreso, in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Jafli Devi (supra) delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court while [2025:RJ-JP:36755] (5 of 7) [CW-11874/2025] interpreting the similar Rule, quite clearly it has been held that where son of deceased employee is already in government service, compassionate appointment cannot be granted to another dependent of the deceased employee. Para 4 of the above judgment is relevant and is reproduced here-under:- “4. The submission of the learned Counsel is that in view of the said condition laid down in the policy framed by the State Government regarding giving appointment on compassionate grounds, Harbans Lal, the second son of the respondent, could not be given appointment in view of the fact that another son 'of the respondent was already in government service. It is urged that the High Court was in error in quashing the order dated 31-3-1994 passed by the Director of Fisheries, which was in consonance with the aforesaid policy contained in the Office Memorandum and in directing that the case of Harbans Lal for appointment on compassionate grounds be reconsidered. We find considerable force in this submissions.In LIC v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar JT Court has laid down that the High Courts and the Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic consideration and the Court should ensure to find out whether a particular case in which sympathetic considerations are to be weighed falls within the scope of law. In that case it was held that direction for appointment on compassionate grounds could not be given dehors the provisions or statutory regulations or instructions governing such appointments.” 20. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lic vs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar has held under:- “12. Further it is well-settled in law that no mandamus will be issued directing to do a thing forbidden by law. In Brij Mohan Parihar v. M.P.S.R.T. Corpn.2 it is stated as under: "The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Actand in particular Sections 42 and 59 clearly debar all holders of permits [2025:RJ-JP:36755] (6 of 7) [CW-11874/2025] including the State Road Transport Corporation from indulging in unauthorised trafficking in permits. Therefore the agreement entered into by the petitioner, unemployed graduate, with the State Road Transport Corporation to ply his bus as nominee of the Corporation on the route in respect of which the permit was issued in favour of the Corporation for a period of five years, was clearly contrary to the Act and cannot, therefore, be enforced. In the circumstances, the petitioner would not be entitled to the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to the Corporation to allow him to operate his motor vehicle as a stage carriage under the permit obtained by the Corporation as its nominee." 13. It is true that there may be pitiable situations but on that score, the statutory provisions cannot be put aside.” 21. Even otherwise as per latin maxim "Ut res magis valeat quam pereat" which means that ‘it is better for a thing to have effect than to be made void’. In essence, it means that Courts should prioritize interpretation of legal provisions to validate them effectively, rather than interpreting them in a way that renders them null or inefffective. 22. In the instant case, interpretation or construction proposes by the petitioner, if accepted would lead to futility as well as against the legislative intent. Hence, such proposal of liberal construction so as to ignore very purpose of prohibiting the compassionate appointment in the cases where already other dependent of the deceased employee is in service, would make the entire provision redundant and would produce unjust results. 23. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also indicated that as per Rule 14 of the Rules of 1996, the government has power to pass an order for the purpose of removing any difficulty in the implementation of any provision of these Rules in the interest of justice. The aforesaid Rule 14 is also of no help to the petitioner for the obvious reasons that the language of Rule 5 is absolutely clear and there is no ambiguity whatsoever. If any personal difficulty has arisen out of her own [2025:RJ-JP:36755] (7 of 7) [CW-11874/2025] peculiar circumstances, no protection of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1996 can be sought by the petitioner." 7. In light of the above discussion, and observations made in the aforesaid case of Bunti (supra), no case for interference is made out. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petition is hereby dismissed. 8. Pending applications(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/143(s)