Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5089 (RAJ)

MANISH MEENA S/O LATE SHRI MISHRI LAL v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CW/1797/2024 · 2025-07-17

Sudesh Bansal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:26724] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1797/2024 Manish Meena S/o Late Shri Mishri Lal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Jeevanpura, Gudhasadavartiya, District Bundi (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary/principal Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Assistant Engineer, Public Work Department, Sub- Division-II, Nainwa, District Bundi (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 17/07/2025 1. No one has appeared on behalf of petitioner to pursue the writ petition. 2. In the instant civil writ petition, petitioner has made a prayer to consider his candidature for appointment of compassionate ground in place of deceased father Mishri Lal. 3. It has been pleaded inter alia that petitioner’s father Mishri Lal was a government servant (Beldar) and posted in the office of respondent No.2 and died on 07.10.2021 while in service. Petitioner submitted application for grant of compassionate appointment in place of his father but that application has not been considered by the respondents vide order dated 10.11.2021 (Ann.3). [2025:RJ-JP:26724] (2 of 2) [CW-1797/2024] 4. Perusal of the order dated 10.11.2021 (Ann.3) passed from the office of Assistant Engineer (PWD) Sub-Division-II, Nainwa, District Bundi, it appears that in the death certificate of father, name of petitioner’s mother was indicated as “Para Bai” whereas in the service record, his mother’s name was “Parvati Bai”, hence merely on such ground of mismatch of mother’s name of petitioner, he has been asked to submit a fresh application form along with death certificate and other documents, showing correct name of his mother. 5. This Court finds that it is not a case that where the respondents have denied to consider the case of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, rather vide order dated 10.11.2021, his application was returned with liberty to file afresh with correct death certificate and other documents showing the correct name of his mother, in consonance with the service record. 6. For such reasons, no indulgence by this Court is warranted at this stage. However, petitioner is at liberty to move a fresh application before the respondent for grant of compassionate appointment as has been given by the respondents vide order dated 10.11.2021. 7. With aforesaid liberty, the writ petition is hereby disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J TN/12