- (1.) An application is preferred as per Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 130 days in filing the appeal. The application is allowed as the learned counsel for the respondent is having no objection for condonation of delay aforesaid. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard on merits.
(2.) By the judgment impugned dated 14.03.2014, learned Single Bench directed the appellant-respondents to consider case of the respondent-petitioner for providing appointment to him on compassionate grounds by ignoring the criminal case, in which he was acquitted by entering into a compromise. The facts necessary to be noticed for adjudication of this appeal are that the respondent-petitioner claimed appointment as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (for short, 'the Rules of 1996') being ward of Mr. Lalchand, who died while in service of the State of Rajasthan. The appointing authority vide a communication dated 20.02.2013 conveyed to the petitioner that no appointment as per the provisions of the Rules of 1996 can be given to him looking to his involvement in a criminal case pending before a competent court. Suffice to mention that the office of the Superintendent of Police, Shriganganagar by a letter dated 17.01.2013 informed to the appointing authority that a criminal case for the offences punishable under Section 451, 323, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Suratgarh against the respondent-petitioner on 26.02.2004, wherein a charge-sheet was filed before the competent court on 21.04.2004 and the trial of the same was in process. Being aggrieved by the decision of the appointing authority, the respondent-petitioner preferred a petition for writ with assertion that as a matter of fact by a judgment dated 17.06.2009 he already stood acquitted from the charges pertaining to the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 451 IPC and the benefit of probation was extended to him for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 149 IPC, hence, appointment could have not been denied to him.
(3.) The respondents contested the petition for writ with a stand that the acquittal availed on basis of a compromise does not prove innocence of the person concerned and merely on basis of said compromise, it cannot be said that he had no criminal antecedents.;