[2025:RJ-JP:10759] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11667/2012 Smt. Radha Sharma Wife Of Late Shri Damodar Prasad Sharma, R/o House No. 156, Natani Ka Rasta, Tripolia Bazar, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Gramin Vikas And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. The Deputy Secretary Administration-2, Gramin Vikas And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shashi Kant Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prateek Saxena for Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 10/03/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that husband of the petitioner has died in the Year 2000 while rendering services on the post of Gram Sevak. It is further submitted that respondents appointed petitioners’ son on compassionate basis on the pretext that he would maintain the family of the petitioner, however, he harassed the petitioner and her family instead of maintaining. In this regard, petitioner filed a detailed representation before the competent authorities to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner in place of her son. 2. Furthermore, it is submitted that respondent No.2 vide order dated 08.06.2012, terminated the services of the petitioners’ son. However, while terminating the services of the son, respondent [2025:RJ-JP:10759] (2 of 3) [CW-11667/2012] informed the petitioner that there is no provision to appoint another dependent of the deceased. 3. Lastly, it is submitted that non-consideration of petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis is violative of her rights as enshrined under the provisions of Article 14 and allied provisions of the Constitution of India. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the claim of the petitioner is barred by Rule 10 (3) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment Of Dependents Of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred as ‘Rules of 1996’) wherein it is stated that application for compassionate appointment is to be given within 90 days from the death of the government employee. 5. It is further submitted that as per Rule 6 (2) of the Rules of 1996, an appointment made on any post under these Rules, the benefit intended under these Rules shall be deemed to have been availed and the case shall not be re-opened for appointment to any other post under any circumstances. 6. Heard and considered. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has made the following observations: - 8. That husband of the petitioner has died in the Year 2000. 9. That petitioner is aged approximately 60 Years, as on date. 10. That request for terminating the petitioners’ son was made approximately four months from the date of compassionate appointment. [2025:RJ-JP:10759] (3 of 3) [CW-11667/2012] 11. That as per Rule 6(2) of the Rules of 1996, benefit qua compassionate appointment once availed cannot be re-opened under any circumstances. 12. That compassionate appointment is not a vested right and can be offered in exceptional cases i.e. to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family either on account of death or of medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. The idea of compassionate appointment is not to provide for endless compassion and compassionate appointment cannot be given dehors the statutory regulations/instructions. Moreover, hardship of the candidate/person does not entitle candidate/person to appointment dehors such regulations/instructions. 13. Thence, placing reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and Ors. vs. Anusree K.B. reported in AIR 2022 SC 4766 and considering the aforementioned, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present petition. 14. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J DIKSHA MISHRA /68