[2025:RJ-JP:35991] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12084/2025 Lokesh Kumar Nagar S/o Late Durga Shankar Nagar Kumar, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Jarga, Tehsil Khanpur, District Jhalawar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Inspector General Of Police, Recruitment And Promotion Board Rajasthan, Jaipur, O/o Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 4. Inspector General Of Police, Kota Range, Kota. 5. Superintendent Of Police, District Jhalawar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raj Kumar Kasana For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 08/09/2025 1. By way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the letter/communication dated 10.01.2024, whereby, application for seeking compassionate appointment filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. It is contended that brother of the petitioner Late Shri Rakesh Kumar Nagar was holding the post of Constable in Police Department. While he was in service, he died on 12.02.2019 leaving the entire family in financial distress. Immediately after [2025:RJ-JP:35991] (2 of 4) [CW-12084/2025] death of Late Shri Rakesh Kumar Nagar, another brother of the petitioner Shri Mukesh Kumar Nagar submitted an application for seeking compassionate appointment in place of Shri Rakesh Kumar Nagar. Such application filed by Shri Mukesh Kumar Nagar was dismissed vide communication dated 08.05.2019, on the ground that ‘brother’ does not fall within the ambit of ‘dependent’ as defined under the provisions of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependent of Government Service Rules, 1996. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter, Rules were amended vide notification dated 28.10.2021 whereby, ‘unmarried brother’ has been included in the definition of dependent as prescribed in the Rules of 1996. Hence, the petitioner, who owns to his credit qualification of B.Tech, submitted his application under the Rules of 1996 seeking compassionate appointment. His application was processed; however, since he was married on the date of submitting the application, guidelines were sought by the Superintendent of Police (Recruitment and Promotion Board), Rajasthan, Jaipur from Joint Secretary of Police Department of Home, as to whether the petitioner can be granted compassionate appointment or not? 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of death of the deceased-Government servant, the petitioner was unmarried. Therefore, for the purpose of considering his eligibility for candidature, his marital status on the date of death ought to have been considered by the respondents. However, ignoring the same, position of the Rules which is prevailing on the date of consideration, has wrongly been applied by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that [2025:RJ-JP:35991] (3 of 4) [CW-12084/2025] the judgment referred in communication dated 10.01.2024 is distinguishable on facts and is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. 6. It is an admitted fact that the process of the petitioner has expired in the year 2019 and the petitioner submitted application for the first time in the year 2022 after a lapse of around 3 years from the date of death of deceased-Government servant. 7. Assuming for a moment, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner to the extent that the notification dated 28.10.2021 should be applied retrospectively and a brother should also be considered in definition of dependent is correct, even then the petitioner is not eligible for consideration under the Rules of 1996 for the reasons that admittedly, the amended Rule only includes 'unmarried brother' as dependent of the deceased and not the married brother. It has been admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on the date of submitting the application, he was married therefore, the respondents have committed no mistake in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. 8. It is a settled proposition of law that compassionate appointment is not a regular source of recruitment and is simply a concession extended by the Government in order to extend immediate and emergent financial support to the family, who went in financial distress on account of sudden death of sole bread earner. Thus, after lapse of more than 6 years, seeking [2025:RJ-JP:35991] (4 of 4) [CW-12084/2025] compassionate appointment in the aforesaid circumstances would frustrate the very object of grant of compassionate appointment. 9. In view of above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is totally misconceived and is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/8