[2025:RJ-JP:5865-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 770/2024 Pawan Bissu S/o Shri Phoolchand, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Purohito Ki Dhani, Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus 1. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Through Its Chairman, Cum Managing Director, Makarwali Road, Ajmer. 2. The Secretary, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Makarwali Road, B- Block, Panchsheel Nagar, Ajmer Raj.- 305004. 3. The Deputy Director (Personnel), Jhunjhunu Zone, Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nagendra Sharma with Ms. Sunita Mehla For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Order 11/02/2025 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby, the claim of the appellant-petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that at the time of the death of the appellant’s father in the year 2005, he was minor and under the existing rules, upon attaining majority, he could apply for compassionate appointment. Learned counsel would submit that though after attaining the age of majority, i.e., [2025:RJ-JP:5865-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-770/2024] 18 years, the application could not be filed, there were substantial reasons seeking condonation of delay of 3 years, 7 months and 17 days in submitting the application for compassionate appointment. 3. The learned Single Judge rejected the petition taking into consideration that the compassionate appointment was sought after more than three and a half year of attaining majority. 4. The object and purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succour to the family of deceased employee and is not an alternative source of employment to apply for and claim the same as a matter of right. The mother of the appellant did not apply for compassionate appointment. The appellant attained majority 13 years after death of his father. Even immediately thereafter, he did not apply but it took more than three and a half year to apply. The cause which has been assigned by the appellant cannot be looked into. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court in several decisions to hold that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of the appointment and the object is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. 5. We find no merit in appeal. 6. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ N.Gandhi/Gaurav/04