[2026:RJ-JP:1877-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1278/2025 Manoj Saini S/o Late Shri Ram Lal Saini, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Radha Kishanpura, 70 Bigha Ke Aage, Near Gharsansar Apartment, Near Suman Mahal, Sikar, District Sikar (Rajasthan) ----Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary To Govt. Department Of Sanskrit Education Secretariat, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 2. The Director, Sanskrit Education Govt. Of Rajasthan, 2Nd Floor, Block-6, Shiksha Sankul, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 3. The Principal, Acharya Sanskrit College, Sikar, District Sikar (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodia For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA Order 16/01/2026 1. The appellant assails the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed. The grievance of the appellant is that his father was suffering from dementia while he was in service and even when he was less than 55 years of age so he moved an application to seek voluntary retirement which was allowed by the department on 01.10.2023. 2. After being voluntarily retired, an application was moved for withdrawing the voluntary retirement by his father with a prayer [2026:RJ-JP:1877-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-1278/2025] that his son may be granted compassionate appointment in terms of The Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Permanent Total Disabled Government Servants Rules, 2023, which had come in force with effect from 26.04.2023. However, his application was rejected. It is also noted that the appellant’s father expired on 14th of May, 2024. 3. Learned counsel submits that as per the Rules of 2023, invoked prior to the day on which voluntary retirement was granted, the disease of the appellant’s father ought to have been taken into consideration and the appellant should have been allowed compassionate appointment. We find that the learned Single Judge has relied upon the Rules of 2023, which prescribe liberty for consideration of the rules for allowing compassionate appointment in place of a person who has acquired complete disability during the period of service subject to the concerned person having not attained the age of 55 years. We find that the facts on record neither reflect that the appellant’s father had been declared completely disabled on or before he attained the age of 55 years nor he moved such an application seeking compassionate appointment for his son while being in service. It is only after he had applied for voluntary retirement which was allowed on 01.10.2023, that he moved a subsequent application seeking withdrawal of his voluntary retirement as well as for granting compassionate appointment to his son. 4. The Rules of 2023 do not prescribe for such person who has already taken voluntary retirement to seek compassionate appointment. [2026:RJ-JP:1877-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-1278/2025] 5. In view thereof, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, no case for interference is made out and the present appeal is dismissed. 6. Hence, the appeal is without merit, dismissed. 7. All pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ DEEPTA ARORA /27