[2025:RJ-JP:18472-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18828/2022 Kavita Palawat D/o Late Shri Basudev Singh W/o Shri Bhupendra Singh Ratnu aged about 38 resident of A-20, Shanti Nagar, Mazdoor Marg, Ajmer Road, Jaipur - 302006 (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. The Director General of Police, Police Headquarter, Lalkothi, Behind Nehru Palace, Jaipur. 4. The Inspector General of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan, Jaipur (Police Headquarter, Lal Kothi, Behind Nehru Palace, Jaipur) 5. The Superintendent of Police (Recruitment And Promotional Board), Rajasthan, Jaipur. 6. The Superintendent of Police, (Intelligence) Jaipur, State Special Branch Rajasthan, Jaipur having its office at Police Headquarter, Lalkothi, Behind Nehru Palace, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad, Adv. with Mr. Anurag Mathur, Adv., Mr. Mohd. Kasim Khan Adv. & Mr. Aditya Bhatt, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samee Khan, Adv., Mr. Vivaswan Deekshit, Adv. & Ms. Sunita Meena, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 01/05/2025 (Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J): The petitioner has challenged the order dated 05th May 2022 by which her application seeking compassionate appointment was rejected. In connection thereto, petitioner has challenged clause (iv) in Rule 2(c) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996. [2025:RJ-JP:18472-DB] (2 of 7) [CW-18828/2022] 2. The expression dependent is defined under Rule 2(c), as under : “(c) “Dependent” means, - “(i) Spouse, or (ii) Son including son legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life time, or (iii) unmarried/widowed/divorced daughter including daughter legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life time, or (iv) married daughter, if no other dependent of the deceased Government servant mentioned in clause (ii) and (iii) above is available, or (v) mother, father, unmarried brother or unmarried sister in case of unmarried deceased Government servant, who was wholly dependent on the deceased Government servant at the time of his/her death.” 3. According to the petitioner, there should not be any qualification or condition attached to entitlement of the married daughter to seek compassionate appointment as in the case of the dependent under clause (ii). However, we do not find any discrimination made between a son as indicated under clause (ii) and the married daughter under clause (iv), as sought to be projected by Mr. Tanveer Ahamad, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The order of precedence given for appointment as indicated under Rule 2(c) has a reasonable nexus to be achieved while granting compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased employee. The son, unmarried daughter, widowed daughter and divorced daughter including the daughter legally adopted by the deceased Government servant would undoubtedly be wholly dependent on their father. But that is not the status of a married daughter who shall be dependent on her husband and not on her father. Therefore, if a provision has been made that the [2025:RJ-JP:18472-DB] (3 of 7) [CW-18828/2022] married daughter shall get appointment only if no other dependent of the deceased Government employee under clauses (ii) & (iii) is available then that cannot be said to be in breach of the Constitutional mandated under Articles 14 and 16. While so, challenge to Rule 2(c)(iv) of the Compassionate Appointment Rules must fail. 4. This is well settled that the scheme of compassionate appointment emanates from humanitarian grounds to provide immediate relief to the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis. In “Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India & Ors.” (2011) 4 SCC 209, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the scheme of compassionate appointment is carved out in the interest of justice, in certain exigencies, by way of a policy which partakes the character of the service rules. In “State Bank of India & Anr. v. Somvir Singh” (2007) 4 SCC 778, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the right for consideration for appointment must be traceable under any scheme, executive instructions, rules, etc. framed by the employer and there can be no right whatsoever to claim compassionate appointment on any ground other than what has been provided by the employer. 5. Indeed, the public employments must be in consonance with the Constitutional mandate under Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India and the only exception carved out would be the cases where the widow or dependent children of the employee who died in harness are provided employment commonly known as “compassionate appointment”. However, the scheme for compassionate appointment cannot be made a reservoir of vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Elucidating the [2025:RJ-JP:18472-DB] (4 of 7) [CW-18828/2022] object behind compassionate appointment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that the object is not to give a member of the bereaved family a post much less a post for post held by deceased employee. We may also refer to “Haryana State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Hakim Singh” (1997) 8 SCC 85 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the object of providing relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment. In paragraph no.8 of the reported judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under : “8. The rule of appointments to public service is that they should be on merits and through open invitation. It is the normal route through which one can get into a public employment. However, as every rule can have exceptions, there are a few exceptions to the said rule also which have been evolved to meet certain contingencies. As per one such exception relief is provided to the bereaved family of a deceased employee by accommodating one of his dependants in a vacancy. The object is to give succour to the family which has been suddenly plunged into penury due to the untimely death of its sole breadwinner. This Court has observed time and again that the object of providing such ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment.” 6. The father of the petitioner, namely, Basudev Singh was an employee under the State Government on the Post of Inspector of Police. He died on 11th November 2020 while in service. Hence, the application of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment was declined vide order dated 5th May 2022 which contained the following reason : पुललस अधीकक... आसूचना,जयपुर। लवषयः अनुकमातक लनयुकक पदान कराये जाने के समन मे। पसंगः आपके पतांक 4987 लदनांक 20.04.2021. 9957 लदनांक 26.08.2021 एवं 7700 लदनांक 25.04.2022 के कम मे। [2025:RJ-JP:18472-DB] (5 of 7) [CW-18828/2022] महोदय लवषयानगरत पासंलगक पतों के कम मे लनवेदन है लक स. शी वासुदेव लसंह, भू०पू० पुललस लनरीकक, सीआईडी (लवशा), जयपुर की आलशता लववालहत पुती शीमती कलवता पालावत को कालमरक (क-2) लवभाग, राजसान, जयपुर की अलधसूचना लदनांक 28.10.2021 के लनयम 2 (ग) (iv) के अनुसार वैध पुत की उपलबता के कारण अनुकमा लनयुकक देय नहीं है। (English Translation) Superintendent of Police Intelligence, Jaipur Subject: Regarding grant of compassionate appointment. Context: In continuation of your letters No. 4987 dated 20.04.2021, 9957 dated 26.08.2021 and 7700 dated 25.04.2022. Sir, In continuation of the relevant letters under the subject, it is requested that Mrs. Kavita Palawat, the dependent married daughter of late Shri Vasudev Singh, former Police Inspector, CID (Visha), Jaipur, is not entitled to compassionate appointment on account of availability of the legitimate so as per Rule 2 (ग) (iv) of the Notification dated 28.10.2021 of the personnel (क-2) Department, Rajasthan Jaipur. 7. It is contended on behalf of the State of Rajasthan that any claim for compassionate appointment must be decided in terms of the existing scheme, that is to say, the claim of the married daughter would come only if the dependents in clauses (ii) and (iii) are not available. 8. In the first palce, in “Priyanka Shrimali v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.” vide Civil Reference No.1/2022, the Larger Bench of this Court which was constituted to render its opinion as to entitlement of a married daughter for compassionate appointment held as under : “As a consequence, it is directed that on account of striking down of the word ‘unmarried’ from the definition (i) the same shall not effect any case, wherein compassionate appointment has already been granted under the provisions as they stood before this order; (ii) the same by itself would not provide a cause of action to any applicant and would apply to cases which are either pending before the competent authority and/or to the cases [2025:RJ-JP:18472-DB] (6 of 7) [CW-18828/2022] where litigation is pending on the date of this order only; (iii) the provisions and other requirements of the definition regarding the applicant being wholly dependent on the government servant at the time his/her death would be scrupulously applied; (iv) all the parameters as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court for grant of compassionate appointment, shall also be scrupulously followed and that (v) all other provisions of the Rules except the inclusion of the ‘married daughter’ in the definition of ‘dependent’, shall have full application. The matters be now placed before the Division Bench for appropriate orders.” 9. As noticed above, the State of Rajasthan took a policy decision to treat the married daughters eligible for compassionate appointment and the married daughters have been made eligible for compassionate appointment. Besides that, the Larger Bench of this Court having struck down word “unmarried” from the definition in "Priyanka Shrimali", the application seeking compassionate appointment moved by the claimant could not have been rejected on the ground that the deceased employee had a son. This is not the case pleaded by the respondents that the brother of the petitioner was offered appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, the petitioner’s application seeking compassionate appointment should not have been rejected on the ground that she has a brother who is eligible for appointment. A mere existence of a right which was not exercised by the dependent of the deceased employee cannot be a ground to reject the claim of another dependent of the deceased employee. In fact, the Compassionate Appointment Rules recognize the right of another dependent to claim compassionate appointment where the first claimant refuses to accept the offer for appointment on compassionate ground. In this context, we [2025:RJ-JP:18472-DB] (7 of 7) [CW-18828/2022] may also refer to proviso to sub-rule 2 to Rule 6 of the Compassionate Appointment Rules which provides as under : “6. Selection of posts :- (1) The dependents may be considered for appointment to a post carrying “Level-1 to Level-9 in Pay Matrix” & meant for being filled up by Direct Recruitment in the Subordinate Services/Ministerial Services/Class IV Service, as the case may be, according to his/her educational qualification and fulfillment of other service conditions irrespective of the rank and status of the deceased Government servant. “Provided that in case of a Government servant who is killed while performing his official duties, his/her dependent may also be considered for appointment to a post carrying “Level-10 to Level-11 in Pay Matrix” and meant for being filled up direct recruitment, subject to fulfillment of the educational qualifications and other service conditions prescribed under the relevant Service Rules and with the concurrence of the Department of Personal and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission.” (2) Once an appointment has been 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. “Provided that in case where dependent to whom appointment is offered does not join for any reason, whatsoever another dependent who is otherwise eligible for appointment under these Rules, may be considered for compassionate appointment, if he applies within 90 days from the date on which the earlier appointment order was received by the appointee.” 10. Having thus considered the issue raised by the petitioner, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18828 of 2022 is allowed. 11. The respondents are directed to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner within six weeks. (ANAND SHARMA),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J DIVYA /158