GARG, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 2. 7. 2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 17. 3. 2001 (Annex. P/4) passed by the respondents by which the petitioner was refused appointment on compassionate ground on the death of his father, be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:- THE father of the petitioner late Shri Gyarasa Ram (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was permanent employee of the respondent-Department. THE deceased was appointed on the post of Sweeper on 9. 8. 1974 and was made permanent on that post vide order dated 1. 7. 1978. THE services of the deceased were ordered to be terminated vide order dated 4. 1. 1994 and his earlier services were forfeited vide order dated 14. 7. 1993. THE petitioner's father (deceased) in his life time challenged both the orders dated 4. 1. 1994 and 14. 7. 1993 before this Court by way of writ petition being S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 547/1994. When that writ petition was pending, the petitioner's father died on 3. 4. 1995. Due to the death of petitioner's father, in that writ petition, his LRs were taken on record. It is the case of the petitioner that while that writ petition was admitted on 1. 2. 1994, this Court stayed the operation of the termination order dated 4. 1. 1994 and later on, that stay order was confirmed by this Court on 15. 4. 1998. THE said writ petition being No. 547/1994 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 8. 3. 1999 (Annex. P/1) and the following order was passed by this Court:- " THE petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the claim of Pappu Lal petitioner for employment on compassionate ground expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order in accordance with law. Shri Dave assures this Court that in the peculiar circumstances of this case, the issue of limitation under the current rules of termination of his father shall not come in way of the petitioner. " It may be clarified here that the above order dated 8. 3. 1999 Annex. P/1 was passed by this Court when the petitioner showed his willingness to withdraw the writ petition. Thereafter, on 12. 3. 1999, the petitioner moved an application (Annex. P/2) before the respondent No. 3 Superintendent, P. B. M. Hospital, Bikaner with a request to give him appointment on compassionate ground, as per the directions given by this Court in the order Annex. P/1 dated 8. 3. 1999. The said application of the petitioner Annex. P/2 was forwarded by respondent No. 3 to the Dy. Secretary, Department of Medical & Health, Jaipur and the forwarding letter is Annex. P/3. But, surprisingly, the petitioner received an order dated 17. 3. 2001 (Annex. P/4) by which the respondents denied compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the ground that the father of the petitioner was not in service at the time of his death and that order Annex. P/4 has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition on various ground and the main submission of the petitioner is that since the order Annex. P/1 dated 8. 3. 1999 was passed by this Court with the consent of the parties, therefore, in compliance of that order Annex. P/1, compassionate appointment should have been given to the petitioner and that since the operation of the order dated 4. 1. 1994 terminating the services of the petitioner's father was stayed by this Court, therefore, on the date of death of the petitioner's father i. e. on 3. 4. 1995, he should have been treated on duty. Hence, this writ petition with the prayers as stated above. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and they supported the impugned order Annex. P/4 on the ground that when the petitioner's father died, he was not in service and, therefore, the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be given to the petitioner under the provisions of the Rajasthan compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "rules of 1996" ). Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record. Sub-clause (b) on Rule 2 of the Rules of 1996 defines the word "deceased Government Servant" in the following manner:- " (b) `deceased Government Servant" means a person who was employed in connection with the affairs of the State including a member of All India Services of Rajasthan State Cadre and whose pay was debatable to the consolidated fund of the State and who died while in service and who was:- (i) Permanent, or (ii) holding a post temporarily after appointment on regular basis, or (iii) appointed against a regular vacancy on urgent/temporary appointment and has put in one year's continuous service as such. "
(3.) THE above definition makes the position very clear that compassionate appointment can be given to a person, who is LR of deceased Government Servant was in service on the date of his death. Admittedly, in this case, the service of the petitioner's father were terminated vide order dated 4. 1. 1994 and the petitioner's father died on 3. 4. 1995 meaning thereby on 3. 4. 1995, the petitioner's father was not in service on the date of his death. In my considered opinion, no doubt operation of the order dated 4. 1. 1994 terminating the services of the petitioner's father was stayed by this Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 547/1994, but this would not change the date of death of the petitioner's father. apart from this, since that writ petition was disposed of through order dated 8. 3. 1999 Annex. P/1 and in that order Annex. P/1, nowhere termination order dated 4. 1. 1994 was set aside, therefore, form this point of view also, on the date of his death on 3. 4. 1995, the petitioner's father was not in service. ;