Son's Right To Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Defeated By Parents' Divorce Or Appointment Of Father's Second Wife: Rajasthan HC
While granting the relief of compassionate appointment to the respondent, Rajasthan High Court held that denial of such appointment merely on the ground that after his parents divorce the respondent was not residing with the deceased employee and thus was not dependent on him, was clearly untenable.
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, and Justice Baljinder Sandhu, further rejected the State's argument of the appointment already being given to the deceased's second wife.
It was observed that the appointment to the second wife was granted after the respondent had applied for the compassionate appointment, and that too under the widow quota. Such appointment could not evade the independent right of the respondent to claim appointment under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996.
The respondent had applied for compassionate appointment after his father's death which was not granted. A writ petition was filed by him against this decision which was allowed. Against this decision, the State filed an appeal.
It was argued on behalf of the State that after the divorce of his parents, the respondent was residing with his mother, and thus was not dependent upon his father. Hence, he was not entitled to compassionate appointment.
While rejecting this argument, the Court referred to the definition of “dependent” under the 1996 Rules, and opined that the status of the respondent as the son of the deceased employee could not be negated merely because divorce had taken place between his parents.
Further, the Court also rejected the argument of appointment being granted to the second wife of the deceased, and stated, “…appointment to the second wife was granted after the petitioner had applied for appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme. She secured regular appointment under the widow quota and, therefore, such appointment cannot divest the petitioner of his independent right of appointment under the Rules of 1996”.
Accordingly, the appel was dismissed.
Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Ashish Saxena & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 86