Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THE respondents did not accede to the prayer for compassionate appointment, the petitioner has been impelled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court by way of instant writ application praying for the following relief(s): - - "(i) by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction or in the nature thereof may be pleaded to declare the action of the respondents in not giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner as bad in law and hold the petitioner entitled for giving compassionate appointment from the date he submitted the application for the same. (ii) by issuing an appropriate, writ, order or direction or in the nature thereof this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment and give him such appointment w.e.f. The date of submitting application for the same with all consequential benefits; (iii) any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner with costs."
(2.) SHORN off unnecessary details, the essential material facts pleaded staking the claim are: that the father of the petitioner, Late Shri Usman Khan, died in harness on 3rd November, 2002, while working on the post of CCA -III in the office of Assistant Engineer (O&M), Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited ('JVVNL', for short), Sunel, District (Jhalawar). It is pleaded case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner, Late Shri Usman Khan, left behind two wives. The petitioner is eldest son born out of the wedlock with the first wife (Ms. Bano Bee). The second wife of the petitioner's father is Smt. Raheesa Bano. The petitioner submitted an application (Annexure -1) for appointment on compassionate grounds. Having received no response, a notice dated 29th October, 2003 (Annexure -2) was addressed to the respondents, through Counsel, claiming appointment on compassionate grounds and terminal benefits i.e., pension, gratuity and provident fund. The respondents in response to the notice vide communication dated 14th November, 2003, informed the Counsel for the petitioner that the deceased employee did not make any nomination and declaration, as to his terminal benefits, a fact, as surfaced from the service record and therefore, requested for a 'Succession Certificate' from the competent court of law to settle the payment of terminal benefits and to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Another notice dated 25th May, 2004 (Annexure -4) was addressed to the respondents, on behalf of the petitioner, reiterating the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds and release of due terminal benefits. It is further pleaded that the respondents were informed through an affidavit by Ms. Bano Bee, the first wife of the deceased employee, of the fact that the petitioner, son and a daughter named Sitara, were born out of the wedlock. Sitara's marriage was solemnized during the lifetime of the deceased employee. The first wife of the deceased employee lived separately on account of matrimonial discord with the deceased employee. It is also an admitted fact that the deceased employee entered into second marriage with Smt. Raheesa Bano. Three daughters, namely, Parveen Bano aged about 8 years, Farim aged about 3 years and Munni aged about 1 1/2 years as well as a son Imran, aged about 6 years, were born out of the wedlock of the deceased employee with Smt. Raheesa Bano. The first wife (Smt. Bano Bee) made a proposal for according appointment on compassionate grounds to her son, the petitioner, and release of terminal benefits in favour of the second wife (Smt. Raheesa Bano). The respondents again requested the petitioner vide communication dated 17th August, 2004 (Annexure -6) to furnish a 'Succession Certificate' from the competent court of law so as to settle the payment of the terminal benefits due to the deceased employee and also to consider the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner, in response, submitted a Certificate dated 16th December, 2004, issued by the District Judge, Tonk (Rajasthan), with reference to an amount of Rs. 50,000/ - (Rupees : Fifty Thousand), deposited by Late Shri Usman Khan as PF and gratuity amount. The petitioner again addressed an undated representation (Annexure -9) claiming for appointment on compassionate grounds followed by a notice for demand of justice through Counsel dated 18th October, 2005. Since, the claim has not been acceded to by the respondents and hence, approached this Court. In response to the notice of the writ application, the respondents have filed its counter -affidavit repelling the claim of the petitioner on the ground that both the petitioner and the second wife (Smt. Raheesa Bano) of the deceased employee, staked claim for compassionate appointment. The application dated 12th November, 2003, submitted by Smt. Raheesa Bano, claiming compassionate appointment has been placed on record as Annexure -R/1. Smt. Raheesa Bano, through an affidavit, also detailed out the fact that four children were born out of her wedlock with the deceased employee and she has not opted for remarriage after death of the deceased employee and therefore, her case deserves sympathetic consideration for compassionate appointment. The respondents again called upon both the parties i.e. the petitioner as well as Smt. Raheesa Bano, to furnish the 'Succession Certificate' from the competent court of law, in order to settle the terminal benefits of the deceased employee as well as the rival claim for compassionate appointment. But only a Certificate with reference to an amount of Rs. 50,000/ - (Rupees : Fifty Thousand), deposited by the deceased employee, was furnished by the petitioner. The proposal as addressed by the first wife Smt. Bano Bee, through her affidavit, has not been acceded to by the second wife Smt. Raheesa Bano. Be that as it may, it is not the issue for adjudication before this Court.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the pleaded facts assailed the action of the respondents in not according appointment on compassionate grounds as illegal and arbitrary. The learned counsel would further submit that the respondents have unduly delayed the rightful and genuine claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment even after submission of the 'Succession Certificate' issued by the competent court of law. The learned counsel referring to Rule 5(2) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1996', for short), has emphasized that the respondents were obliged to extend compassionate appointment, after having obtained an undertaking from the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner would properly maintain the other family members, who were dependant on the deceased government servant. But the respondents failed to do so for the reason best known to them. The learned counsel has stressed that compassionate appointment is a right and therefore, the writ application deserves to be allowed with a direction to the respondents to accord compassionate appointment in favour of the petitioner.;