[2025:RJ-JP:19222] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24716/2018 Smt. Punita Devi wife of Late Shri Deshraj Singh, aged about 45 Years, R/o Village Malaheda, Post Salempur (Khurd), Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, through its Chief Managing Director, Parivahan Bhawan, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur. 2. The Depot Manager, Vidhyadhar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajpal Dhankhar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 07/05/2025 1. By way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.02.2008, whereby, services of Late husband of the petitioner were terminated and has further prayed that after quashing the aforesaid order, directions may be given for granting all the consequential benefits including the benefit of compassionate appointment. 2. Petitioner has come out with a case that her husband Late Sh. Deshraj Singh was initially appointed on the post of Driver- cum-Conductor on purely contractual basis on 01.05.2006, however, on account of an accident which took place with the bus which was being driven by her husband, in view of terms and conditions mentioned in the contract between the petitioner and [2025:RJ-JP:19222] (2 of 3) [CW-24716/2018] the respondent-Corporation, services of her husband came to be terminated vide order dated 02.02.2008. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequently vide judgment dated 29.11.2017 passed by the Competent Criminal Court, Late husband of the petitioner was acquitted from all the charges in relation to the accident on the basis of which services of the husband of the petitioner were earlier terminated. 4. Hence, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 02.02.2008 and to grant all other consequential benefits including compassionate appointment. 5. Admittedly, Late husband of the petitioner was not holding any substantive post in respondent-Corporation and his services were subject to terms and conditions of the contract executed by him with the respondent-Corporation. 6. Under the circumstances, mentioned hereinabove, on account of violation of conditions of contract since, services of Late husband of the petitioner were terminated, no infringement of any statutory or constitutional rights could be established by the petitioner. 7. Even otherwise, the contract entered into between Late husband of the petitioner as well as respondent-Corporation was also a time bound contract and was no longer in existence. Hence, no benefit whatsoever can be granted to the petitioner. 8. So far as, relief claimed by the petitioner in respect of compassionate appointment is concerned, such benefit is admissible only in respect of those employees who are holding such substantive post and during services such substantive [2025:RJ-JP:19222] (3 of 3) [CW-24716/2018] employees are expired. Admittedly, case of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of the scheme of the compassionate appointment. 9. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed on account of being devoid of any merits and substance. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/205