SITA DEVI Vs. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the widow of employee of respondent who was serving them as Bastawardar, a class of employee. He while serving died in harness on 24/11/1997. The petitioner submitted an application to the respondents on 4/12/1997 claiming appointment for her son on the post of Class- IV employee on compassionate ground. The respondents vide letter dated 16/1/1998 required the petitioner to submit an application on prescribed proforma. Petitioner thereupon submitted the application on prescribed proforma on 26/2/1998 to respondent No. 1 namely-District & Sessions Judge, Bharatpur. Request of the petitioner for appointment to her son was declined by respondent No. 1 vide communication dated 3/3/1998 informing her that it was not possible to give appointment to her son on compassionate ground however if petitioner herself was willing to get the appointment, she could within three days of the receipt of the said letter, submit the application. The petitioner on 5/3/1998 itself submitted the application and it was on that basis that she was appointed by the District & Sessions Judge, Bharatpur on 1/4/1998 on compassionate ground. Though, this appointment was made on compassionate ground but she was given appointment for a period of six months on probation basis in the regular pay scale of 2550-55-2660-3200. It is the common case between the parties that appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time and lastly vide order dated 18/7/2001 (Ann. 6) upto 30/9/2001. Thereafter, in September, 2001, services of the petitioner were terminated by the Court of learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Bharatpur in purported compliance of the order dated 9/7/2001 passed by the Registrar General Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and order dated 17/8/2001 of the District & Sessions Judge, Bharatpur. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) RELEVANT rule which is sought to be pressed into service by the respondents is Rule 10 (3) of the Rules of 1996 which requires the applicant to make application for appointment on compassionate ground within 90 days from the date of death of the Government Servant. In the present case, the petitioner made the application within 10 days of the date of death of her husband on 4/12/1997 therefore, merely because the subsequent applications which were submitted in continuation thereof on 26/2/1998 and 5/3/1998 in response to the communications sent to her by the District & Sessions Judge Judge, Bharatpur i. e. firstly on 16/1/1998 and, thereafter, on 3/3/1998, cannot be said to be barred by time. In any case, the Division Bench did not require the respondents to terminate services of such appointees whose appointments have already been made and became final. Appointments once made crystilising the right in favour of an appointee, thereafter, cannot be discontinued. Action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner is, therefore, liable to be set-aside also being arbitrary and illegal as no show cause notice nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to terminating her services.