(1.) By way of this intra-court appeal, the petitioner-appellant seeks to question the order dated 05.07.2012 as passed in CWP No.2633/2012 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition after finding no merit in his claim for appointment on compassionate basis.
(2.) In brief, the relevant background aspects of the matter are that the father of the petitioner-appellant, late Shri Dayal Singh, who was working on the post of Junior Instructor, died while in service on 01.09.1994. The appellant was allegedly about 3-4 years of age at the time of demise of his father. The case of the appellant has been that after attaining the age of 18 years, he submitted an application for compassionate appointment. The appellant has not stated the date of such an application but the documents on record indicate that the same was moved by him in the month of July 2009. The petitioner-appellant averred in the petition that the respondents did not make any communication with him though he was continuously taking up the case with them. The appellant further averred that the respondents made a communication on 13.05.2010 (Annex. 4) to the effect that his mother was working in an educational institution receiving 90% grant-in-aid and hence, he was not entitled for compassionate appointment under the Rules, i.e., the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 ('the Rules of 1996'). According to the appellant, his mother sent a reply on 21.06.2010 (Annex.5) stating, inter alia, that she worked on non-aided post from 10.12.1992 on ad-hoc basis and then, was working in the institution since 26.10.1996. The appellant further averred that he had been repeatedly making representations and referred to the representation dated 23.02.2012 (Annex.7) that was replied by the respondents on 28.02.2012 (Annex.8) with reference to a previous communication dated 30.05.2011 (Annex.9) in the manner that he was not entitled for appointment on compassionate basis under the Rules of 1996 as his mother was working against an aided post.
(3.) The appellant asserted in the petition that his case was required to be considered with reference to the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975 ('the Rules of 1975') and not under the Rules of 1996. It was also submtited that his mother was serving in the school against non-aided post from the year 1992 to the year 1996 and since her husband expired in the year 1994, the appellant cannot be denied appointment on compassionate basis on the ground that his mother was working against an aided post. The learned Single Judge, however, found meritless the claim as made by the appellant essentially with the consideration that the father of the appellant expired way back in the year 1994 and the difficulties being faced by the family could not be considered existing to the same degree in the year 2012. The learned Single Judge also referred to Rule 5 (1) of the Rules of 1996 and held that no appointment shall be admissible in the present case where the mother of the petitioner-appellant was working in an educational institution getting aid to the tune of 90% and hence, was an organisation at least partially controlled by the State Government.