[2025:RJ-JP:46193] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10967/2025 Gulfam Son Of Late Shri Shahbuddin, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of 632, Rishi Galav Nagar, Galta Gate, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Local Self Government, Secretariat, Jaipur, (Raj). 2. The C.e.o. Nagar Nigam, Greater, Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay Bhawna, Lalkothi, Jaipur. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Moti Dungri, Nagar Nigam Greater, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Puri Mr. Rohan Jain For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 17/11/2025 1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with following prayers: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that in the interest of justice, your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and further be pleased to direct the respondents by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction to appoint the petitioner on the on compassionate ground in lieu of his father's death during the service of the respondents. Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. Cost of this writ petition may also kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment under the Rules but the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that date of birth of petitioner is 19.12.1976 and he has already crossed the maximum age, prescribed for appointment as 40 years. He [2025:RJ-JP:46193] (2 of 2) [CW-10967/2025] submits that no enquiry is conducted by respondents while considering the case for appointment under the compassionate appointment Rules. He further submitted that as per date of birth, considered by respondents, the difference between his father Late Shri Shahbuddin and himself (petitioner) is only 12 years but same is not possible in any circumstances. He further submitted that respondents authorities may be directed to consider other documents including ration card as submitted by him to support the age of present petitioner. 3. Having considered aforesaid, it is appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file representation to respondents. 4. Considered the grievance raised herein, the petitioner is given a liberty to submit a representation to the respondents- Authority within a period of 30 days raising all grounds and the respondents-Authority are directed to decide the representation with a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 30 days from date of receipt of representation. After the decision, the respondents are under an obligation to communicate the decision to the petitioner either by way of speed post or through E-mail, if petitioner has provided E-mail in his representation. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, he has a liberty to approach this Court with fresh petition. 5. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition with pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /15