V.K.SINGHAL, J. - (1.) BY this petition the appointment as clerk on compassionate ground under the provisions of Rajasthan Recruitments of Dependents of Govt. Servants Dying while in Service, Rules, 1975 (hereinafter called as the Rules of 1975) is claimed.
(2.) THE father of the petitioner was working as Class IV employee in the Social Welfare Scheme, Virat Nagar, Jaipur, which is run by the Social Welfare Board. The father of the petitioner died on 5.12.1981 and at that time the age of the petitioner was 18 years. The application for appointment was made on 7.11.89. The correspondence continued between the Administrator of the Social Welfare Scheme, Viratnagar and the petitioner. The Dy. Secretary to the Government vide his letter dated 6.12.1989 has also written a letter to the Director, Social Welfare Department to give appointment to the petitioner, The Joint Director, Social Welfare Department has written on 2.2.1990 to the Secretary, Rajasthan State Advisory Board for giving appointment to the petitioner on the post of LDC. Notice for demand of justice was given. In the reply submitted by the respondent it was stated that after the death of the father of the petitioner there was no vacant post lying on which the appointment could have been given and that Social Welfare Scheme and the Advisory Board do not fall in the category of State. The mother of the petitioner was already in service and therefore the petitioner is not entitled for the appointment, on compassionate ground. I have considered over the matter. From the record produced it is evident that at the time of death of the father of the petitioner he was 18 years of age i.e. on 5.12.1981. The petitioner passed Secondary School Examination on 18.7.78. It was only the training in Hindi Stenography taken by him in between 20.7.84 to 19.1.1985 and thereafter the application for appointment on compassionate ground was given on 7.11.1982. In accordance with the Rules of 1975 the application could have been given by a candidate having 16 years of age. The very object of providing employment under the said Rules of 1975 is to provide the assistance to the 'family of the deceased government servant. Even Rule 5 of the Rules of 1975 contemplates that the suitable employment has to be given in government service without delay. The employment could be given even against existing vacancy as provided under Rule 5 it self, If the application is made after 8 years of the death of the father of the petitioner it cannot be considered that he has a right to move such an application at such a belated stage. The argument that the training for Hindi Stenography was obtained at the subsequent stage is of no help to the petitioner because the father of the petitioner was on a post of class IV employee at the time of his death and the petitioner could have made an application for appointment to the post of class IV employee for which he was having necessary eligibility as he passed Secondary examination in 1978. The subsequent training in Hindi Stenography cannot explain the delay and cannot be taken into consideration because if a person still continues his further studies and after 10 years he comes and says that he is now Post Graduate, he should be given suitable employment under the rules he cannot be permitted to do so. The Apex Court in the case of Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar and Anr. JT 1966 (2) SC 542 considered the decision given by it in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors. : [1994]3SCR893 and observed that - It has been indicated in the decision of Umesh Kumar Nagpal (Supra) that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a long lapse of reasonable period and the very purpose of compassionate appointment, as an exception to the general rule of open recruitment, is intended to meet the immediate financial problem being suffered by the members of the family of the deceased employee. In the other decision of this Court in Jagdish Prasad's case, it has been also indicated that the very object of appointment of dependent of deceased -employee who died in harness is to relieve immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family and such consideration cannot be kept binding for years. An unreported decision given in the case of Jagdish Ptasad v. State of Bihar C.A. No. 10682 of 1995 decided on November 13, 1995 was also taken into consideration in which the applicant was four years of age at the time when his father died in harness. It was contended before the Apex Court that since the appellant was minor when the father died in harness, the compassionate circumstances having continued till the date he made an application for appointment, he was entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. Such contention was not accepted by the court below and upholding the rejection of such claim the Apex Court observed - The very objection of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employee who die in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and disatress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. Since the death occurred way back in 1971 in which year the appellant was four years old it cannot be said that he is entitled to be appointed after he attained majority long thereafter. In other words, if that contention is accepted, it amounts to another mode of recruitment of the dependent of a deceased Government servant which cannot be encouraged de hors the recruitment rules. The object of the scheme Is to provide Immediate assistance to the grieved family and not to create a right to and dependent who may at his sweet will makes an application at any time he likes. The time has now come that the scheme should be suitably amended and modified and therefore a copy of this order shall be sent to the Chief Secretary for amending the Rules of 1975 so as to avoid misapprehension in the minds of the dependents and avoid the litigation also. The Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar : (1996)ILLJ1105SC observed that the delay itself is a ground on the basis of which the appointment on compassionate ground could be refused - Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rules of 1975 have not been considered in the said judgment. This contention has no force because the object of the Rules as stated is to provide the employment to one member of the family of the deceased employee to give immediate assistance to the family without delay. The submission of the application at a late stage itself is a ground for non -consideration of the claim of the petitioner. The respondents though have not considered the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the mother of the petitioner is already in government service and that the respondents are not state, I need not examine these contentions in view of the fact that the claim has been made at a belated stage and as such no direction can be given for appointment of the petitioner.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , the writ petition, has no force. It is hereby dismissed.;