Judgment:
ORDER
Lakshmanan, C.J.
(1). This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge (P.P. Naolekar, J.) in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3978/2000, dated, 1.9.2000, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground of delay in applying for compassionate appointment.
(2). The appellant's father who was a Teacher Gr. Ill in the Education Department of Government of Rajasthan died on 24.6.94 while in Government service. The appellant was born on 21.4.1981 and at the lime of his father's death, it is stated that he was about 13 years and 2 months. He attained majority on 21.4.99. According to the appellant, he passed the Senior Higher Secondary Examination on 24.6.1998 and has submitted an application for compassionate appointment on the post of Teacher. By order dated 21.8.98, the appellant was informed by the Deputy Inspector of Education (Primary), Kekri, Ajmer, that the application by the appellant should have been filed within 45 days from the date of death of his father and since his application was belated, the same cannot be considered. Thereupon, the appellant received a communication on 16.2.99, wherein he was required to send his application for compas-sionate appointment through District Education Officer (Elemcntary-1), Ajmer. According to the appellant, the only requirement as per order dated, 16.2.99 was to send the form through proper channel. Since there was no response to his application, he sent a notice for demand of justice and there upon file writ petition before this court which had been dismissed by the order dated. 1.9.2000.
(3). We heard Shri Ashok Gaur for the appellant and Shri Mohd. Rafiq, Additional Advocate General for the respondents.
(4). Mr. Ashok Gaur submitted that the appellant had submitted in his writ petition that as far as Compassionate Rules, 1996 are concerned, they were made applicable w.e.f. 27.1.1997 and that a Government servant who died after the said date, their dependents were required to make application for compassionate appointment within 45 days form the date of death of the father of the appellant and since the appellant's father died on 24.6.1994, it is submitted that erstwhile Rules of 1975 were applicable to him and therefore, there was no delay on the part of the appellant to submit the application form. It is further argued that since the appellant is the eldest son in the family, he was only 13 years of age when his father died in the year 1991 and the appellant immediately on passing the Senior Higher Secondary on 24.6.1998 submitted an application for compassionate appointment and since the family of the appellant were solely dependent on the income of the father of the appellant, the entire family needs the source of income for the survival.
(5).Per contra, it was also argued that Rule 8 of the Rules of 1996 provides that the dependent should be within the age limit prescribed for the post under the concerned Service rules at the time of appointment. The appellant could not have been given appointment before he attained the age of 18 years and therefore, the respondents could not have rejected his claim in the year 1998 itself by the impugned order by observing that the appellant did not apply within 45 days. It is also further submitted that the appointing authority had been given power under Rule 10(6) of the Rule of 1996 and in case suitable post is not vacant, the application shall be kept on wailing list and if no post is available for appointment within 2 years from the date of submission of the application, the matter is required to be referred to the Department of Personnel and, therefore, there cannot be any justification for rejecting the claim.
(6). Per contra Mr. Mohd. Rafiq submitted that the object of compassionate appointment in itself is to give succor to the family to tide over sudden financial crisis befallen the dependents on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning member and it is in order to mitigate the hardship caused to the family and alleviate the distress of the family that as a welfare measure the appointments are given on compassionate grounds.
(7). We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The Supreme Court in many cases has decided that the consideration for compassionate appointment is not a vested right and such right cannot be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis and that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed and offered whatsoever, long lapse of lime and after the crisis is over. In our opinion, a writ of mandamus cannot be claimed and issued contrary to what is provided in the rules. Dependents of the deceased Government servant do not stand to acquire any right of employment nor does any such right accrued to them by mere death of such Government servant and, therefore, they cannot claim it as a matter of right. The lavy is well settled that whenever an Act is repealed, it must be considered, except as to transactions passed and closed, as if it had never existed. The effect of repeal vide rule 15 in the present case was to obliterate the rule of 1975 completely from the rule book as if it had never been framed and it never existed, except to the extent of actions which were initiated, taken and concluded while the Rules of 1975 were existing. In the instant case, the request made by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot at all be countenanced. His request for consideration afresh under the Rules of 1975 cannot,at all be-appreciated. Present Rules of 1996 provide for limitation to submit application within 45 days of death of the government servant. Since the application has been made beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Act, the appellant cannot claim appointment on compassionate ground. We also hold that no appointment can be given under a repealed law, since the rule making authorities intended not to give appointment under the old rules as well as right of consideration of the appellant is not saved. Courts have held that mere death of an employee does not entitle appointment on compassionate ground and that the application should be made within the time prescribed under the Rules and the long delay in seeking appointment disentitles appointment on compassionate grounds and since the appointment can be given subject to qualification and availability of vacancy.
(8). For all the fore-going reasons, the appeal has no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordinglv, the Writ Appeal fails and dismissed. No costs.