[2025:RJ-JP:7236-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 120/2024 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. The Superintendent Of Police, Department Of Home, District Jhalawar (Raj.) ----Appellants Versus Diksha Nama W/o Shri Chandra Prakash Namdev Spouse/o Chandra Prakash Namdev, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Kheda Rasulpur, Village And Post Kaithoon, District Kota (Raj.) ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, AAG with Ms. Sunita Meena Mr. Samee Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 19/02/2025 1. Heard on application (128/2024) filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that issue involve in this matter has also been considered and decided by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of State of Raj. Vs. Lalita Bai and Anr. passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No. 1114/2023 wherein on 06.12.2024, the following order was passed:- [2025:RJ-JP:7236-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-120/2024] 1. Heard. 2. Learned State Counsel would submit that in view of the observation, which was made by the Full Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Priyanka Shrimali Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (Civil Reference No. 1/2022 and other connected matters decided on 13.09.2022), old stale matters relating to claim of compassionate appointment are not covered even though litigation was pending in the Court. 3. The argument cannot be accepted. 4. In the concluding part of the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Priyanka Shrimali Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (supra), it has been held as below: “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 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 deceased government servant at the time of 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.” It is clear that the judgment rendered in the case of Priyanka Shrimali Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (supra) would be applicable in cases where litigation is pending. Writ petition was filed in the year 2016 and remained pending on the date when judgment was rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of [2025:RJ-JP:7236-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-120/2024] Priyanka Shrimali Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (supra). 5. As to whether it being an old case, compassionate appointment should be granted or not is another matter. However, the State cannot refuse to consider application in the light of the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Priyanka Shrimali Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (supra) because the application could not be rejected on the ground of respondents being married daughters. 6. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. In that view of the matter, this appeal is dismissed in view of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the matter of State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra). (MANEESH SHARMA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J NEERU/76