[2025:RJ-JP:34775] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17546/2024 Manoj Saini S/o Late Shri Ram Lal Saini, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Radha Kishanpura, 70 Bigha Ke Aage, Near Gharsansar Apartment, Near Suman Mahal, Sikar, District Sikar (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary To Govt., Department Of Sanskrit Education Secretariat, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. The Director, Sanskrit Education Govt. Of Rajasthan, 2nd Floor, Block-6, Shiksha Sankul, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 3. The Principal, Acharya Sanskrit College, Sikar, District Sikar (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.P. Saini on behalf of Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pranav Sharma with Mr. Anirudh Sharma on behalf of Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 29/08/2025 1. Although, today the matter is listed on application for early listing of the writ petition, however, learned counsel for the parties are ready for arguments finally at this stage. 2. Petitioner has assailed the letter/communication dated 26.03.2024, whereby benefits of compassionate appointment under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Permanent Total Disabled Government Servants Rules, 2023 (for short, 'the Rules of 2023'), has been denied to the petitioner. 3. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that date of birth of his father was 03.01.1966. He was holding the post of Senior Assistant in respondent-Department and suffered permanent disability. He submitted one application for [2025:RJ-JP:34775] (2 of 3) [CW-17546/2024] granting voluntary retirement which was allowed by the respondent-Department w.e.f., 01.10.2023. Thereafter, his father moved one application for withdrawing such voluntary retirement and instead thereof he prayed for granting compassionate appointment to any of his dependents under the Rules of 2023. After submitting such applications, father of the petitioner passed away on 14.05.2024. 4. During lifetime of father of the petitioner, vide impugned letter/communication dated 26.03.2024, the application filed by him for granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner was rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reasons assigned in impugned communication dated 26.03.2024 are contrary to the provisions of the Rules of 2023, and application has been rejected on the ground that in his lifetime, his father had already moved for voluntary retirement and he had crossed the age of 55 years. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the writ petition and submitted that the Rules of 2023 came into force by notification dated 26.04.2023 and eligibility of any person with regard to seeking benefits of compassionate appointment under the Rules has to be seen on the date of enforcement of aforesaid Rules. 7. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that after granting voluntary retirement to the father of the petitioner, there was no provision for allowing the withdrawl application submitted by his father, more so, the reason for seeking such withdrawal was submitting application under the [2025:RJ-JP:34775] (3 of 3) [CW-17546/2024] Rules of 2023 for seeking compassionate appointment in the favour of the petitioner. His application under the Rules of 2023 was not maintainable for the reason that on the date of enforcement of the Rules of 2023, he had already attained more than 55 years of age. Hence, learned counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner. 8. Heard and considered. 9. Rule 5 of the Rules of 2023 prescribed eligibility for consideration under the Rules in which one of the condition is that the person making application must establish that he was suffering from complete disability and second condition is that he must not have attained age of 55 years on the date of suffering permanently total disability. 10. In the instant case, nothing has been placed on record by the petitioner to show that his father is suffering from 100% disability. Secondly, on the date of enforcement of aforesaid Rules, admittedly father of the petitioner has crossed age of 55 years, therefore, no consideration could have been made under the aforesaid Rules. 11. In addition to above, when once voluntary retirement has been granted to his father, there was no occasion available to the respondents to withdraw the same and to consider the application filed by the father of the petitioner under the Rules of 2023. 12. In view of above, there is no merit and substance in the writ petition filed by the petitioner and is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/51