Dhirendra Singh Bhati Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....dismissed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - (2). it may be..........our considered opinion, when father of the appellant was actually in service and mother died while in service then it cannot be said that the appellant being son would be dependant of his mother and not of his father. one of us (b.j. shethna, j.) has taken this view in writ petition no. 24/96 decided on 7.1.97. rule 5 of the rules of 1975 is reproduced by the appellant in his writ petition at page 5, therefore, we would not like to reproduce the same. however, rule 2(f) of the rules clearly defines 'family', which reads as under:(f) 'family' means the family of the deceased govt. servant and shall include wife or husband, sons and unmarried or widow daughters, who were dependant on the deceased government servant;'(4). unless and until, the appellant establishes that he was not dependent of his father, but he was dependant of his mother, he would not be entitled to seek appointment on compassionate ground on the death of his mother.(5). in view of the above discussions, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Judgment:

ORDER

Shethna, J.

(1). The appellant who is original petitioner filed writ petition No. 2220/1996 before this Court on 3.7.96 and prayed that the respondents may be directed to appoint him as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant (Dying While in Service) Rules, 1975 on the ground that his mother Smt. Rajkumari Bhati, who was serving as Assistant Teacher with the respondent Department died while in service on 29.2.88, therefore, he being dependent of his mother, he should be given appointment as LDC. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by his impugned judgment and order 17.3.99. The same is challenged in this special appeal by the appellant-original petitioner.

(2). It may be stated that the deceased mother as well as father of the appellant both were serving. The mother was serving as Assistant Teacher with the respondent department whereas father was serving as Clerk with Rajasthan State Electricity Board. His mother dies way back on 29.2.88 and at that time, the appellant was minor. When his father was very much alive and was also in service, then it can never be said that the was dependant of his mother. Being minor child, he would be dependant of his father rather than mother. Application dated 2.6.94 (Annex.2) shows that the appellantpassed his Secondary School Examinations in the year 1990 i.e. after the death of his mother. This was not possible if he was not dependant of his father and maintained by his father. Merely because he was eligible to get service in the year 1994 that does not mean that he was entitled to get employment on compassionate ground as a matter of right.

(3). In our considered opinion, when father of the appellant was actually in service and mother died while in service then it cannot be said that the appellant being son would be dependant of his mother and not of his father. One of us (B.J. Shethna, J.) has taken this view in writ petition No. 24/96 decided on 7.1.97. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1975 is reproduced by the appellant in his writ petition at page 5, therefore, we would not like to reproduce the same. However, Rule 2(f) of the Rules clearly defines 'family', which reads as under:

(f) 'Family' means the family of the deceased Govt. Servant and shall include wife or husband, sons and unmarried or widow daughters, who were dependant on the deceased Government Servant;'

(4). Unless and until, the appellant establishes that he was not dependent of his father, but he was dependant of his mother, he would not be entitled to seek appointment on compassionate ground on the death of his mother.

(5). In view of the above discussions, the present appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.