[2025:RJ-JP:28122] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2587/2020 Lalit Kumar Son Of Late Shri Hira Lal, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Jal Khera Post - Khera Rasulpur, Kaithun Kota Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus The Age B/R - II, Kota Mes Garrison Engineer Kota Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lokesh Verma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 25/07/2025 1. Petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a prayer to consider his candidature for appointment on compassionate ground on post of Majdoor in place of his deceased father. 2. Undisputedly, petitioner's father was a Majdoor in Military Engineering Services (MES) and died while in service on 31.05.2004. Petitioner moved an application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground. His application was considered by the Board of Officers in the Meeting dated 23.09.2005. Petitioner was found suitable for appointment on the post of Majdoor but considering his date of birth as 16.04.1989, at that point of time he was found to be underage and it was recommended that his candidature be considered for [2025:RJ-JP:28122] (2 of 4) [CW-2587/2020] compassionate appointment after attaining the age of majority of 18 years. 3. As per date of birth of petitioner i.e. 16.04.1989, petitioner has attained age of majority of 18 years on 15.04.2007. It appears that thereafter petitioner never approached before the respondents, for considering his candidature for compassionate appointment pursuant to recommendations of the Board of Officers in meeting dated 23.09.2005 and has filed this writ petition on 05.02.2020, it means after expiry of near about 13 years. 4. The aim and object for grant of compassionate appointment is to grant immediate relief to the dependent of deceased employee, who died in penury so that dependents may not face a stage of starvation. The compassionate appointment is never treated as regular mode for appointment. A landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana, [(1994) 4 SCC 138] may be referred in support of such proposition of law. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “2. The question relates to the considerations which should guide while giving appointment in public services on compassionate ground. It appears that there has been a good deal of obfuscation on the issue. As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and met-it. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such [2025:RJ-JP:28122] (3 of 4) [CW-2587/2020] cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependent of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the Change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.” (emphasis supplied) 5. In the case at hand, facts come to fore are that petitioner himself never opted to consider his candidature for appointment on compassionate grounds on attaining the age of majority in the year 2007. Thus, the prayer of petitioner, for considering his candidature for appointment after huge delay of 13 years, cannot be taken as genuine, more so when no explanation for enormous delay for a period of 13 years has been given. 6. Accordingly, instant petition is hereby dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:28122] (4 of 4) [CW-2587/2020] 7. Stay application and any other pending application, if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN/TANISHA /20