The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that a son cannot be denied compassionate appointment merely because his parents were divorced or because he was living with his mother. The court observed that the status of a son as a dependent under the relevant rules does not change due to the divorce of parents.
A Division Bench dismissed a special appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan, upholding an earlier order of a Single Judge that had directed consideration of the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment.
Read also:- Madras High Court Acquits Man in POCSO Case, Says Failure to Prove Victim’s Age Fatally Weakens Prosecution
Background of the Case
The case arose after the death of a government employee working under the Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project in Banswara. Following his father’s death in 2006, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment within the prescribed time.
However, the authorities asked him to first obtain a succession certificate from a competent court. Although he later obtained the certificate, his application was still not considered.
Left with no option, the petitioner approached the High Court through a writ petition. In January 2017, the Single Judge allowed the petition and directed the authorities to consider his claim for compassionate appointment.
Challenging this order, the State government filed a special appeal before the Division Bench.
State’s Arguments
The State argued that the petitioner was not entitled to compassionate appointment because his parents had divorced and he had been living with his mother. According to the State, this meant he was no longer dependent on his deceased father.
The government also raised another objection, stating that the petitioner was around 39 years old and therefore should not be granted the benefit of compassionate appointment.
Court’s Observations
After examining the records and hearing the parties, the court referred to the definition of “dependent” under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996.
The bench noted that the rules clearly include a “son” within the definition of a dependent family member.
“The status of the petitioner as a son of the deceased government servant cannot be negated merely because divorce had taken place between the parents,” the bench observed.
The court also found that the department’s insistence on obtaining a succession certificate was unjustified in the circumstances of the case.
Issue Regarding Appointment of Second Wife
The State also argued that the second wife of the deceased employee had already been granted appointment under the widow quota, and therefore the petitioner could not claim the same benefit.
The court rejected this argument, pointing out that the widow had been appointed under a separate quota and that her appointment could not affect the petitioner’s independent claim under the compassionate appointment rules.
“The appointment granted to the second wife cannot divest the petitioner of his independent right of appointment,” the bench noted while examining the record.
Delay Not Attributable to the Petitioner
The court further observed that the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment within about a month of his father’s death and was within the eligible age at that time.
However, his claim remained pending for years due to administrative delays and prolonged litigation.
The bench said that denying him the benefit now on the ground of age would be unjustified since the delay was not caused by the petitioner.
Court’s Decision
After reviewing the matter, the Division Bench found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Single Judge in 2017.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the special appeal filed by the State and upheld the earlier order granting relief to the petitioner.
The court also disposed of all pending applications in the case.
Case Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Ashish Saxena & Ors.
Decision Date: 25 February 2026
