[2026:RJ-JP:499-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1038/2025 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Public Health And Engineering Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Chief Engineer, Public Health And Engineering Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. The Assistant Engineering, PHED, Sub-Division V (South) Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. ----Appellants Versus 1. Ravi Rawat Son of Shri Anand Singh Rawat, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 45, Brij Puri, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Ms. Laveena Babbar W/o Shri Ravi Rawat, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Flat No. 604, Sixth Foor, Luxurious Heavan Apartment, Jagatpura, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG and Mr. Aaditya Godara, AAAG with Mr. Rohan Mittal and Ms. Harshita Verma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA Order 08/01/2026 1. The present appeal assails the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the petition filed by the respondent-writ petitioner and has held that the termination of his services vide impugned order dated 20.12.2024 is bad in law. [2026:RJ-JP:499-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-1038/2025] 2. The appellant-State aggrieved of the said order has filed the present appeal and it is submitted that the disclosure of the respondent being married was essential for the purpose of compassionate appointment. 3. We do not agree with the submissions at all, moreso, when the concerned wife who is also impleaded as party to the writ petition has already had estranged relationship with the petitioner and had left the matrimonial home much before the death of the deceased Government servant. It has already come on record that the deceased Government servant was the sole bread earner and the petitioner was wholly dependent on the deceased sole bread earner and after his death he had been given compassionate appointment. It appears that at the behest of the concerned respondent estranged wife against whom divorce petition has already been preferred by the respondent-writ petitioner, the action taken to remove him from the post virtually defeats the very purpose of compassionate appointment under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996. 4. The circular dated 31.05.2016 as handed over to us by the learned counsel for the appellant reflects that a person whose wife, son or unmarried daughter is already in employment then such a person would not be treated to be dependent. 5. However, in the present case such are not the facts before us. The circular dated 31.05.2016 had no relevance in the present facts of the case. 6. The appeal is devoid merits as the same is accordingly dismissed. [2026:RJ-JP:499-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-1038/2025] 7. We direct that the respondent shall known the immediately reinstated and allowed to perform his duty. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA), ACTING CJ Gaurav/Riya/11