Akansha Upadhyay
Date-22 November 2022 at 23:01 IST
The Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur Bench) has observed that a child who was born from the second wife of the deceased employee is eligible for a compassionate appointment.
In arriving at the conclusion, the bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Kuldeep Mathur relied on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India (2022), wherein it was observed that compassionate appointment policy is not discrimination can do against a person on the basis of descent only by classifying the children of the deceased employee as legitimate and illegitimate.
Facts–
The Court observed this while hearing an Intra-court appeal filed by one Hemendra Puri, challenging the order of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by him, in which he had sought property rights of his deceased father.
Instead, there was a demand for compassionate appointment in Jai Narayan Vyas University. Essentially, the appellant’s father had died in December 2004 while working as a ‘Tabla Vadak’ with the Jai Narayan Vyas University. The appellant and respondent No.4 (born through the second wife of the deceased) had applied for compassionate appointment.
The respondent University considered both the applications keeping in view the provisions of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 and August 2005 and extended the compassionate appointment in favor of respondent no.4.
Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a writ petition which got dismissed in April 2018. Therefore, this Special Appeal was filed contending that the second marriage of the deceased employee with the mother of respondent 4 was questionable and therefore, compassionate appointment could not be offered to him.
It was also contended that the appellant was fully eligible and entitled for compassionate appointment in place of the deceased employee, however, the respondent was illegally ignoring his right to make compassionate appointment.
High Court’s observation
At the outset, the Court referred to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar (supra) to hold that a policy for compassionate appointment, which has the force of law, should not discriminate on any of the grounds mentioned in Art. Including lineage.
Further, the Court also took note of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 to conclude that Application No. 4 seeking compassionate appointment cannot be dismissed by the respondent University merely on the ground that Could have been that he has a child from another wife.
“The Head of the Department as per Rule 10(2) of the Rules of 1996 is competent to decide the applications for compassionate appointment keeping in view the overall interest and welfare of the family if more than one of the dependents employment claim on compassionate grounds.”
“In view of the facts noted above, we are of the firm view that the competent authority i.e. the Department Head had of the rightly considered the application submitted to be compliant with the Rules of 1996 and issued an offer of appointment in his favor,” the Court further remarked as it upheld the order of the single judge.
Consequently, the special appeal stood dismissed being devoid of merit.