[2026:RJ-JP:25357-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No. 74/2024 URN: SAW / 140U / 2024 1. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. 2. District Education Officer, Jay Marg, Indra Colony, Alwar, Rajasthan 301001. 3. The Principal, Govt. Bhimraj Senior Secondary School, Village Bardod, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar-301020 Rajasthan. ----Appellants Versus Sangeeta Sharma D/o Late Smt. Gaytri Sharma, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Shri Krishna Nagar, Kund Road, Behror, Ward No. 1, Tehsil Behror, District- Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Sharma with Ms. Pooja Sharma, AAAG For Respondent(s) : Ms. Mudita Sharma with Mr. Vishal Purohit HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 07/07/2026 1. Heard. 2. The issue raised in the present appeal is no more res integra and stands adjudicated in the case of State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Priyanka Mathur (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1267/2024, decided on 06.03.2025), wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that a married daughter is eligible for compassionate appointment upon the foregoing of [2026:RJ-JP:25357-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-74/2024] the appointment by the brother, who was offered compassionate appointment. 3. As the facts are almost similar, therefore, it would be apposite to quote relevant part of the order dated 06.03.2025 in State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Priyanka Mathur (supra) passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as under: “6. The facts of this case are not in dispute and the ground of challenge canvassed by the appellants is confined to whether another ward of the deceased employee can claim compassionate appointment after the offer for employment was refused by the first claimant/offeree. The mother of the writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as claimant), namely, Smt. Leela Mathur was working as ANM under Umaid Hospital, Jodhpur. While in service, Smt. Leela Mathur passed away on 31st October 2020leaving behind a son, namely, Ravi Mathur and a daughter, namely, Priyanka Mathur. Initially, the brother of the claimant was offered appointment but he did not accept the offer on account of his personal difficulties and sent intimation to the department int his regard through his letter dated 18th October 2021. Thereafter, the claimant moved an application on 08th November 2021 seeking compassionate appointment and this application was forwarded by the Superintendent of the Umaid Hospital to the Director(Non- Gazetted) Medical and Health Services vide letter dated18th November 2021 but that request came to be rejected on24th January 2022. The claimant made several representations and, in response thereof, another rejection order came on08th February 2024 from the Deputy Director (Nursing) Medical and Health Department. 7. The proviso to sub-rule 2 to Rule 6 of the “Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment to Dependant of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996” provides as under :- “6. Selection of posts :- (1) The dependents may be considered for appointment to a post carrying “Level-1 to Level-9 in Pay Matrix”& meant for being filled up by Direct Recruitment in the Subordinate Services/Ministerial Services/Class IV Service, as the case may be, according to his/her educational qualification and fulfillment of other service conditions irrespective of the rank and status of the deceased Government servant. “Provided that in case of a Government servant who is killed while performing his official duties, his/her dependent may also be considered for appointment to a post carrying “Level-10 to Level-11 in Pay Matrix” and meant for being filled up direct recruitment, subject to fulfillment of the educational qualifications and other service conditions prescribed under the relevant Service Rules and with the concurrence of [2026:RJ-JP:25357-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-74/2024] the Department of Personal and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission.” (2) Once an appointment has been made on any post under these Rules, the benefit intended under these Rules shall be deemed to have been availed and the case shall not be re-opened for appointment to any other post under any circumstances. “Provided that in case where dependent to whom appointment is offered does not join for any reason, whatsoever another dependent who is otherwise eligible for appointment under these Rules, may be considered for compassionate appointment, if he applies within 90 days from the date on which the earlier appointment order was received by the appointee.” 8. There is no dispute that the application for compassionate appointment was moved by the claimant within 90 days of refusal by her brother and it was well within time as stipulated under proviso to sub-rule 2 to Rule 6 of the Compassionate Appointment Rules. This is also not disputed by the appellant-authorities that the claimant is eligible for appointment in terms of the extant Rules prevailing as on the date of consideration of the claim. However, what is contended on behalf of the State of Rajasthan is that any claim for compassionate appointment must be decided on the basis of the existing scheme. In “State Bank of India & Anr. v. Raj Kumar” (2010) 11 SCC 661and “MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh” (2014) 13 SCC 583, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the claim for compassionate appointment should be decided in terms of the governing scheme which was in force when the application seeking compassionate appointment came up for consideration. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in “N. C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka & Ors.” (2020) 7SCC 617 that the norms prevailing as on the date when the application seeking compassionate appointment is considered and that only should be the basis for consideration. In “N.C. Santhosh” the governing principles for the grant of compassionate appointment have been encapsulated as under:- “19. Applying the law governing compassionate appointment culled out from the above cited judgments, our opinion on the point a tissue is that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. A dependant of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the death of the government employee, can only demand consideration of his/her application. He is, however, disentitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of the government employee.” 9. This is a matter of record that the State of Rajasthan took a policy decision to treat the married daughters eligible for compassionate appointment and the married daughters have been made eligible for compassionate appointment. Besides that, the Larger Bench of this Court having struck down [2026:RJ-JP:25357-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-74/2024] word “unmarried” from the definition in "Priyanka Shrimali", the application seeking compassionate appointment moved by the claimant could not have been rejected on the ground that the deceased employee had a son. This is well remembered that the judgment on the same issue rendered by the Larger Bench of this Court shall have binding effect and must be followed by a two-Judges Bench of this Court. This is really a matter pertaining to judicial discipline and proprietary that this Court follows the decision in “Priyanka Shrimali” and render a decision on the similar lines. 10. Having thus considered the issue raised by the appellants, we do not find any merit in D. B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1267 of 2024 which is accordingly dismissed.” 4. In view of the above, the present appeal stands dismissed. The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is upheld. 5. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand dismissed. 6. However, it is expected that the compliance should be made expeditiously within a period of three weeks from today. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ N.GANDHI/RAJAT/160