[2025:RJ-JP:6734] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2280/2025 Ajit Singh Son Of Late Shri Mohan Singh Gurjar, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Kutakpur, Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Excise Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Excise Commissioner, Aabkari Bhawan, 2, Gumaniyawala, Panchwati, Udaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amitabh Jatav For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 14/02/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has applied for the grant of compassionate appointment on 24.07.2024 on attaining majority in terms of age, after the demise of the his father on 29.08.2012. 2. It is further submitted that candidature of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 18.10.2024, on account of delay. Therefore, being aggrieved of the same, present petition is filed in the Year 2025. 3. Furthermore, it is submitted that the petitioner in this regard has filed a representation before the respondents, however, the same is not considered. [2025:RJ-JP:6734] (2 of 3) [CW-2280/2025] 4. In this backdrop, it is submitted that non-grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner who is from the rural background and has to shoulder the responsibility of his family members, is capricious, arbitrary and unjust. 5. Heard and considered. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, upon perusal of the records, this Court has made the following observations:- 6.1. That petitioners’ father had died in the Year 2012 and no reasonable explanation and justification is provided on what grounds compassionate appointment should be granted to the petitioner. 6.2. That no reasonable justification is provided by the petitioner qua source of survival for last 12 years, and only reason stated is that petitioner is from the rural background, which is not a reasonable ground for the grant of compassionate appointment. 6.3. That as on date, over 12 years have lapsed since the demise of the earning family member, against whom compassionate employment is sought. If compassionate appointment is made now, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate grounds is provided. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis caused by the instant death of the earning family member. The object is not to give such family a post, much less a post held by the deceased family member. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated in Fertilizers and [2025:RJ-JP:6734] (3 of 3) [CW-2280/2025] Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and Ors. vs. Anusree K.B. reported in, AIR (2022) SC 4766. 6.4. That the plea is raised in the Year 2024, after lapse of approximately twelve years is not only belated but also hit by the doctrine of delay and laches. 6.5. That judgment relied upon by the respondent passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana reported in, (1994) 4 SCC 138, is appropriate to made applicable to the instant matter as the respondents only after consideration of the fact that the petitioner has applied seeking grant of compassionate appointment after a reasonable lapse of time, have dismissed the said application. 6.6 That the consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. 6.7 That this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 18.10.2024. 7. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 8. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J SAURABH /413