In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has directed the Rajasthan State Electricity Transmission Corporation to consider the application for compassionate appointment of a man whose father died in service back in 1997. At the time of his father’s death, the petitioner was just two years old.
Compassionate appointments are generally provided as immediate relief to the dependents of a deceased government servant to alleviate the sudden financial crisis due to the loss of the primary earner in the family. However, in this rare case, the Court acknowledged a 28-year delay, recognizing the ongoing financial distress faced by the family even decades later.
“In this case, ever since the father's death in 1997, the family has relied solely on a meager family pension, insufficient to meet their basic needs." – Rajasthan High Court
Justice Arun Monga, presiding over the case, referred to Rule 10(3) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996. This rule empowers the State to relax the time limit for applications in cases of extreme financial hardship, even if the usual deadline is missed.
According to the Court, the petitioner's mother is illiterate and currently suffers from both physical and mental ailments, making her incapable of supporting the family. The petitioner, after losing his elder brother as well, stands as the only surviving male member, now bearing the full burden of supporting his household.
“There is thus ongoing penury and calamity warranting its alleviation... Denying compassionate appointment would perpetuate the family's financial hardship, defeating the benevolent intent of the scheme.” – Rajasthan High Court
The Court noted that the petitioner's elder brother had initially applied for compassionate appointment after reaching adulthood. However, due to a delay of three and a half years in filing the application post-majority, the request was never accepted. Tragically, the brother passed away before his application could be processed. Subsequently, the current petitioner moved forward to seek compassionate appointment in his own name.
Despite this, his application was rejected by the authorities. The reason cited was that the original application should have been filed by the mother within 90 days of the father’s death, and that the delay in informing the department about the elder brother attaining majority further complicated the situation.
The State contended that under the Rules, there is a strict timeline to apply for compassionate appointment and that the delay was unjustified.
However, the Court disagreed with the State's position, pointing out that the petitioner’s mother and family belonged to a tribal background and were not made aware of their rights under the scheme.
"The members of the deceased are not normally aware of their any right under the scheme to apply for the compassionate appointment until and unless they are so informed...” – Rajasthan High Court in Smt. Maya L. Dinghrani vs. UCO Bank
The judgment emphasized the importance of the employer's duty to inform the dependents of their rights, especially in cases involving illiterate or underprivileged families. In this instance, the Court held that failure to inform the petitioner’s family about their rights and the time-bound clause warranted condonation of the delay.
Furthermore, the Court remarked that the petitioner's application was rejected purely on technical grounds related to delays by his elder brother or mother. It stated that the petitioner’s own eligibility was never evaluated independently.
“This approach overlooked petitioner’s independent eligibility as the next surviving dependent after his brother’s death.” – Rajasthan High Court
Accordingly the delay was condoned, and the matter was remitted to the concerned State Department for consideration of petitioner's application.
Title: Bharat Kumar v Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.
