[2025:RJ-JP:1183-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19082/2024 Aditya Palawat S/o (Late) Sh Dharamveer Singh Palawat, Aged 25 Years, R/o Plot No 18, Mehta Nagar, 9 Dukan, Jhotwara, Jaipur, (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Elementary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 302005. 2. The Chief Block Education Officer, Sambhar Lake (Jaipur Rural) (Raj) 303604. 3. Principal, Pm Shri Darbar Government Senior Secondary School, English Medium, Sambhar Lake (Jaipur Rural) (Raj) 303604. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Chaudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Avinash Chaudhary on behalf of Mr. B.S. Chhaba, AAG HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Order 08/01/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed constitutional legality and validity of Rule 2 (C) and Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for short ‘the Rules of 1996’). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the definition of word “Dependent” as ascribed in Rule 2 (C) of the [2025:RJ-JP:1183-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-19082/2024] Rules of 1996 and the provisions contained in Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996, unduly restrict the benefit of compassionate appointment and seek to frustrate the very objective of grant of compassionate appointment. It is submitted that in a given case, it may happen that even though one of the sons or members of the family is in employment, the earning may not be sufficient to cater the needs of all the members of the family, therefore, in such a case, another member in the family may be in the need of employment on compassionate appointment to earn his/her own livelihood and of other members of the family. The other submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the provision operates discriminatory. It is submitted that under the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996, no such restriction has been imposed on the widow. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any merit in the petition. As to in what manner and to what extent a policy of compassionate appointment is to be formulated and implemented is in the realm of policy makers. The prescription under the Rules of 1996 that if there is any other member entirely employed, benefit of compassionate appointment would not be available, does not suffer from vice of arbitrariness. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is not a source of employment, but a policy intended to provide immediate succor to the family of the deceased employee and nothing more. As one of the members of the family of the dependent is already employed, the other members of the family cannot, as of right, claim that compassionate appointment policy should be so tailored as to provide compassionate appointment to any member. [2025:RJ-JP:1183-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-19082/2024] Employment of one of the members of the family means that there is someone in the family who is earning income. The argument that income is sufficient or not to cater the needs of the family is completely fallacious, as this could happen even when the government servant was alive and in employment. No parity can be claimed with the widow of the deceased. She stands on altogether different footing, as compared to her sons and daughters. A widow, unless herself employed, is absolutely dependent on her husband. Therefore, special status has been attached to the widow of the deceased and the sons of the deceased cannot draw a parity with their mother in the matter. 5. The petition sans substratum and, therefore, is dismissed in limine. (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ N.Gandhi/178