Sanjay Kumar Rawal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Decided On : Dec-02-1996

Court : Rajasthan

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Code Context


$shops2 = $shops['topics'];
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sanjay Kumar Rawal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Article 14',
			(int) 1 => 'Constitution',
			(int) 2 => 'Constitution',
			(int) 3 => 'the Rule of 1975'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'N.L. Tibrewal',
			(int) 1 => 'Shri Sadhu Ram',
			(int) 2 => 'the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants',
			(int) 3 => 'Education Department',
			(int) 4 => 'State',
			(int) 5 => 'State',
			(int) 6 => 'Court',
			(int) 7 => 'Umesh Kumar',
			(int) 8 => 'State of',
			(int) 9 => 'the Apex Court',
			(int) 10 => 'Lordships',
			(int) 11 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 12 => 'the State Government',
			(int) 13 => 'III',
			(int) 14 => 'Government',
			(int) 15 => 'Guardian',
			(int) 16 => 'Deptt',
			(int) 17 => 'Personnel'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1',
			(int) 1 => 'Rules'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1975',
			(int) 1 => 'December 30, 1984',
			(int) 2 => 'March 16, 1994',
			(int) 3 => '1975',
			(int) 4 => '1975',
			(int) 5 => 'the year 1984',
			(int) 6 => '1975'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Shri Bhagwan Sahai',
			(int) 1 => 'Smt',
			(int) 2 => 'Hazari Devi',
			(int) 3 => 'Articles 14',
			(int) 4 => 'Sadhuram',
			(int) 5 => 'Articles 14'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '16',
			(int) 1 => 'one',
			(int) 2 => '5',
			(int) 3 => 'one',
			(int) 4 => '16'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Nagpal',
			(int) 1 => 'Haryana'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '756481',
			'acts' => 'Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 16',
			'appealno' => 'S.B.C.W.P. No. 4602/1996',
			'appellant' => 'Sanjay Kumar Rawal',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Sanjay Kumar Rawal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Strong reliance is placed on the proviso to the aforesaid definition of 'family'.The proviso reads as under :Provided that if no such member of the family be eligible for getting benefit under these rules, the benefit available under these Rules may be extended to any other close relative of the deceased to be named by the widow or the Guardian of the children of the deceased with the specific approval of the Deptt. ' 6. In the instant case, admittedly, the son of the deceased was eligible for getting benefit under the rules and he did not like to take the benefit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Bharat Bhushan Pareek, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-12-02',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' N.L. Tibrewal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">N.L. Tibrewal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner who is grandson of late Shri Sadhu Ram is seeking mandamus and direction to the respondents for providing him employment/ appointment on compassionate ground under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying while in service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules). It is stated that late Shri Sadhu Ram was employed in Education Department as Teacher Gr. III and while he was in service, he died on December 30, 1984. It appears that he left Shri Bhagwan Sahai (son) and his wife Smt. Hazari Devi behind him. According to the petitioner, he moved an application on March 16, 1994 for getting appointment under the Rules of 1975. His claim was rejected on the ground that he was not entitled to get appointment under the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the claim of the petitioner has been wrongly denied as the benefit under the Rules could be extended to any other close relative of the deceased to be named by the widow.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The scheme of the rules of 1975 has the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground to mitigate the hardship due to the death of the bread earner in the family. It cannot be disputed that the appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the equality clause under Article 14, otherwise, any such appointment merely on the ground of being a dependent of an ex-employee of the State, shall be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The question of appointment of one of the dependants of an employee of the State,dying while in service has assumed importance and cases have come before this Court where the benefit has been obtained by misusing the provisions of the Rules. Hence, it has become necessary that there should be a proper check and balance in providing such employment/ appointments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1995-I-LLJ-798), the Apex Court has held that as a rule, appointment in public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground was an exception to the aforesaid rule, taking into consideration the fact of death of the employee while in service and leaving his family without any means of livelihood . In such cases, the object is to enable the family to tide over sudden crisis. It was also laid down that such appointments on compassionate grounds have to be made in accordance with rules, regulations or administrative instructions and taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. Then their Lordships observed as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is obvious from the above observations that the High Court endorses the policy of the State Government to make compassionate appointment in posts equivalent to the posts held by the deceased employees and above classes III and IV. It is unnecessary to reiterate that these observations are contrary to law. If the dependent of the deceased employee finds it below his dignity to accept the post offered, he is free not to do so. The post is not offered to cater to his status but to see the family through the economic calamity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It was also impressed that appointments on compassionate ground cannot be made after lapse of reasonable period which must be specified in the rules because the right to suchemployment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the instant case, the Government employee Sadhuram had died in the year 1984. He had left one son and his wife as dependents. No appointment was sought by the son probably due to the fact that he was engaged in business. The petitioner who is grandson of the deceased Government servant cannot be dependent on the deceased Government servant. He also does not fall within the definition of 'family' as provided under the Rules of 1975, which includes wife or husband, sons and unmarried or 'widow daughters and son/daughter adopted according to the provisions of law by the deceased Government servant,' who were dependent on the deceased Government servant. Strong reliance is placed on the proviso to the aforesaid definition of 'family'. The proviso reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Provided that if no such member of the family be eligible for getting benefit under these rules, the benefit available under these Rules may be extended to any other close relative of the deceased to be named by the widow or the Guardian of the children of the deceased with the specific approval of the Deptt. of Personnel.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the instant case, admittedly, the son of the deceased was eligible for getting benefit under the rules and he did not like to take the benefit. Hence, the proviso does not come into application. Otherwise also, the expression close relative of the deceased is so vague and wide that prima facie it appears to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances. I find that the claim of the petitioner to get appointment under the Rule of 1975 has been rightly declined.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Consequently, the petition fails and it is hereby dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1998)IIILLJ149Raj; 1997WLC(Raj)UC48',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '756481'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sanjay Kumar Rawal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Article 14',
		(int) 1 => 'Constitution',
		(int) 2 => 'Constitution',
		(int) 3 => 'the Rule of 1975'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'N.L. Tibrewal',
		(int) 1 => 'Shri Sadhu Ram',
		(int) 2 => 'the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants',
		(int) 3 => 'Education Department',
		(int) 4 => 'State',
		(int) 5 => 'State',
		(int) 6 => 'Court',
		(int) 7 => 'Umesh Kumar',
		(int) 8 => 'State of',
		(int) 9 => 'the Apex Court',
		(int) 10 => 'Lordships',
		(int) 11 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 12 => 'the State Government',
		(int) 13 => 'III',
		(int) 14 => 'Government',
		(int) 15 => 'Guardian',
		(int) 16 => 'Deptt',
		(int) 17 => 'Personnel'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1',
		(int) 1 => 'Rules'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1975',
		(int) 1 => 'December 30, 1984',
		(int) 2 => 'March 16, 1994',
		(int) 3 => '1975',
		(int) 4 => '1975',
		(int) 5 => 'the year 1984',
		(int) 6 => '1975'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Shri Bhagwan Sahai',
		(int) 1 => 'Smt',
		(int) 2 => 'Hazari Devi',
		(int) 3 => 'Articles 14',
		(int) 4 => 'Sadhuram',
		(int) 5 => 'Articles 14'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '16',
		(int) 1 => 'one',
		(int) 2 => '5',
		(int) 3 => 'one',
		(int) 4 => '16'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Nagpal',
		(int) 1 => 'Haryana'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '756481',
		'acts' => 'Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 16',
		'appealno' => 'S.B.C.W.P. No. 4602/1996',
		'appellant' => 'Sanjay Kumar Rawal',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Sanjay Kumar Rawal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Strong reliance is placed on the proviso to the aforesaid definition of 'family'.The proviso reads as under :Provided that if no such member of the family be eligible for getting benefit under these rules, the benefit available under these Rules may be extended to any other close relative of the deceased to be named by the widow or the Guardian of the children of the deceased with the specific approval of the Deptt. ' 6. In the instant case, admittedly, the son of the deceased was eligible for getting benefit under the rules and he did not like to take the benefit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Bharat Bhushan Pareek, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-12-02',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' N.L. Tibrewal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">N.L. Tibrewal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner who is grandson of late Shri Sadhu Ram is seeking mandamus and direction to the respondents for providing him employment/ appointment on compassionate ground under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying while in service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules). It is stated that late Shri Sadhu Ram was employed in Education Department as Teacher Gr. III and while he was in service, he died on December 30, 1984. It appears that he left Shri Bhagwan Sahai (son) and his wife Smt. Hazari Devi behind him. According to the petitioner, he moved an application on March 16, 1994 for getting appointment under the Rules of 1975. His claim was rejected on the ground that he was not entitled to get appointment under the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the claim of the petitioner has been wrongly denied as the benefit under the Rules could be extended to any other close relative of the deceased to be named by the widow.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The scheme of the rules of 1975 has the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground to mitigate the hardship due to the death of the bread earner in the family. It cannot be disputed that the appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the equality clause under Article 14, otherwise, any such appointment merely on the ground of being a dependent of an ex-employee of the State, shall be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The question of appointment of one of the dependants of an employee of the State,dying while in service has assumed importance and cases have come before this Court where the benefit has been obtained by misusing the provisions of the Rules. Hence, it has become necessary that there should be a proper check and balance in providing such employment/ appointments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1995-I-LLJ-798), the Apex Court has held that as a rule, appointment in public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground was an exception to the aforesaid rule, taking into consideration the fact of death of the employee while in service and leaving his family without any means of livelihood . In such cases, the object is to enable the family to tide over sudden crisis. It was also laid down that such appointments on compassionate grounds have to be made in accordance with rules, regulations or administrative instructions and taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. Then their Lordships observed as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is obvious from the above observations that the High Court endorses the policy of the State Government to make compassionate appointment in posts equivalent to the posts held by the deceased employees and above classes III and IV. It is unnecessary to reiterate that these observations are contrary to law. If the dependent of the deceased employee finds it below his dignity to accept the post offered, he is free not to do so. The post is not offered to cater to his status but to see the family through the economic calamity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It was also impressed that appointments on compassionate ground cannot be made after lapse of reasonable period which must be specified in the rules because the right to suchemployment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the instant case, the Government employee Sadhuram had died in the year 1984. He had left one son and his wife as dependents. No appointment was sought by the son probably due to the fact that he was engaged in business. The petitioner who is grandson of the deceased Government servant cannot be dependent on the deceased Government servant. He also does not fall within the definition of 'family' as provided under the Rules of 1975, which includes wife or husband, sons and unmarried or 'widow daughters and son/daughter adopted according to the provisions of law by the deceased Government servant,' who were dependent on the deceased Government servant. Strong reliance is placed on the proviso to the aforesaid definition of 'family'. The proviso reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Provided that if no such member of the family be eligible for getting benefit under these rules, the benefit available under these Rules may be extended to any other close relative of the deceased to be named by the widow or the Guardian of the children of the deceased with the specific approval of the Deptt. of Personnel.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the instant case, admittedly, the son of the deceased was eligible for getting benefit under the rules and he did not like to take the benefit. Hence, the proviso does not come into application. Otherwise also, the expression close relative of the deceased is so vague and wide that prima facie it appears to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances. I find that the claim of the petitioner to get appointment under the Rule of 1975 has been rightly declined.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Consequently, the petition fails and it is hereby dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1998)IIILLJ149Raj; 1997WLC(Raj)UC48',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '756481'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]
Code Context
//$shops = $shops['entities'];

foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Sanjay Kumar Rawal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. Semantic Analysis',
	'shops' => array(
		'LAW' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Article 14',
			(int) 1 => 'Constitution',
			(int) 2 => 'Constitution',
			(int) 3 => 'the Rule of 1975'
		),
		'ORG' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'N.L. Tibrewal',
			(int) 1 => 'Shri Sadhu Ram',
			(int) 2 => 'the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants',
			(int) 3 => 'Education Department',
			(int) 4 => 'State',
			(int) 5 => 'State',
			(int) 6 => 'Court',
			(int) 7 => 'Umesh Kumar',
			(int) 8 => 'State of',
			(int) 9 => 'the Apex Court',
			(int) 10 => 'Lordships',
			(int) 11 => 'the High Court',
			(int) 12 => 'the State Government',
			(int) 13 => 'III',
			(int) 14 => 'Government',
			(int) 15 => 'Guardian',
			(int) 16 => 'Deptt',
			(int) 17 => 'Personnel'
		),
		'NORP' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'J.1',
			(int) 1 => 'Rules'
		),
		'DATE' => array(
			(int) 0 => '1975',
			(int) 1 => 'December 30, 1984',
			(int) 2 => 'March 16, 1994',
			(int) 3 => '1975',
			(int) 4 => '1975',
			(int) 5 => 'the year 1984',
			(int) 6 => '1975'
		),
		'PERSON' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Shri Bhagwan Sahai',
			(int) 1 => 'Smt',
			(int) 2 => 'Hazari Devi',
			(int) 3 => 'Articles 14',
			(int) 4 => 'Sadhuram',
			(int) 5 => 'Articles 14'
		),
		'CARDINAL' => array(
			(int) 0 => '16',
			(int) 1 => 'one',
			(int) 2 => '5',
			(int) 3 => 'one',
			(int) 4 => '16'
		),
		'GPE' => array(
			(int) 0 => 'Nagpal',
			(int) 1 => 'Haryana'
		)
	),
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '756481',
			'acts' => 'Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 16',
			'appealno' => 'S.B.C.W.P. No. 4602/1996',
			'appellant' => 'Sanjay Kumar Rawal',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Sanjay Kumar Rawal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.',
			'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Strong reliance is placed on the proviso to the aforesaid definition of 'family'.The proviso reads as under :Provided that if no such member of the family be eligible for getting benefit under these rules, the benefit available under these Rules may be extended to any other close relative of the deceased to be named by the widow or the Guardian of the children of the deceased with the specific approval of the Deptt. ' 6. In the instant case, admittedly, the son of the deceased was eligible for getting benefit under the rules and he did not like to take the benefit.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Bharat Bhushan Pareek, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-12-02',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' N.L. Tibrewal, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">N.L. Tibrewal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner who is grandson of late Shri Sadhu Ram is seeking mandamus and direction to the respondents for providing him employment/ appointment on compassionate ground under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying while in service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules). It is stated that late Shri Sadhu Ram was employed in Education Department as Teacher Gr. III and while he was in service, he died on December 30, 1984. It appears that he left Shri Bhagwan Sahai (son) and his wife Smt. Hazari Devi behind him. According to the petitioner, he moved an application on March 16, 1994 for getting appointment under the Rules of 1975. His claim was rejected on the ground that he was not entitled to get appointment under the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the claim of the petitioner has been wrongly denied as the benefit under the Rules could be extended to any other close relative of the deceased to be named by the widow.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The scheme of the rules of 1975 has the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground to mitigate the hardship due to the death of the bread earner in the family. It cannot be disputed that the appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the equality clause under Article 14, otherwise, any such appointment merely on the ground of being a dependent of an ex-employee of the State, shall be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The question of appointment of one of the dependants of an employee of the State,dying while in service has assumed importance and cases have come before this Court where the benefit has been obtained by misusing the provisions of the Rules. Hence, it has become necessary that there should be a proper check and balance in providing such employment/ appointments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1995-I-LLJ-798), the Apex Court has held that as a rule, appointment in public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground was an exception to the aforesaid rule, taking into consideration the fact of death of the employee while in service and leaving his family without any means of livelihood . In such cases, the object is to enable the family to tide over sudden crisis. It was also laid down that such appointments on compassionate grounds have to be made in accordance with rules, regulations or administrative instructions and taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. Then their Lordships observed as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is obvious from the above observations that the High Court endorses the policy of the State Government to make compassionate appointment in posts equivalent to the posts held by the deceased employees and above classes III and IV. It is unnecessary to reiterate that these observations are contrary to law. If the dependent of the deceased employee finds it below his dignity to accept the post offered, he is free not to do so. The post is not offered to cater to his status but to see the family through the economic calamity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It was also impressed that appointments on compassionate ground cannot be made after lapse of reasonable period which must be specified in the rules because the right to suchemployment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the instant case, the Government employee Sadhuram had died in the year 1984. He had left one son and his wife as dependents. No appointment was sought by the son probably due to the fact that he was engaged in business. The petitioner who is grandson of the deceased Government servant cannot be dependent on the deceased Government servant. He also does not fall within the definition of 'family' as provided under the Rules of 1975, which includes wife or husband, sons and unmarried or 'widow daughters and son/daughter adopted according to the provisions of law by the deceased Government servant,' who were dependent on the deceased Government servant. Strong reliance is placed on the proviso to the aforesaid definition of 'family'. The proviso reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Provided that if no such member of the family be eligible for getting benefit under these rules, the benefit available under these Rules may be extended to any other close relative of the deceased to be named by the widow or the Guardian of the children of the deceased with the specific approval of the Deptt. of Personnel.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the instant case, admittedly, the son of the deceased was eligible for getting benefit under the rules and he did not like to take the benefit. Hence, the proviso does not come into application. Otherwise also, the expression close relative of the deceased is so vague and wide that prima facie it appears to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances. I find that the claim of the petitioner to get appointment under the Rule of 1975 has been rightly declined.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Consequently, the petition fails and it is hereby dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1998)IIILLJ149Raj; 1997WLC(Raj)UC48',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and anr.',
			'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '756481'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Sanjay Kumar Rawal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr. Semantic Analysis'
$shops = array(
	'LAW' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Article 14',
		(int) 1 => 'Constitution',
		(int) 2 => 'Constitution',
		(int) 3 => 'the Rule of 1975'
	),
	'ORG' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'N.L. Tibrewal',
		(int) 1 => 'Shri Sadhu Ram',
		(int) 2 => 'the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants',
		(int) 3 => 'Education Department',
		(int) 4 => 'State',
		(int) 5 => 'State',
		(int) 6 => 'Court',
		(int) 7 => 'Umesh Kumar',
		(int) 8 => 'State of',
		(int) 9 => 'the Apex Court',
		(int) 10 => 'Lordships',
		(int) 11 => 'the High Court',
		(int) 12 => 'the State Government',
		(int) 13 => 'III',
		(int) 14 => 'Government',
		(int) 15 => 'Guardian',
		(int) 16 => 'Deptt',
		(int) 17 => 'Personnel'
	),
	'NORP' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'J.1',
		(int) 1 => 'Rules'
	),
	'DATE' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1975',
		(int) 1 => 'December 30, 1984',
		(int) 2 => 'March 16, 1994',
		(int) 3 => '1975',
		(int) 4 => '1975',
		(int) 5 => 'the year 1984',
		(int) 6 => '1975'
	),
	'PERSON' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Shri Bhagwan Sahai',
		(int) 1 => 'Smt',
		(int) 2 => 'Hazari Devi',
		(int) 3 => 'Articles 14',
		(int) 4 => 'Sadhuram',
		(int) 5 => 'Articles 14'
	),
	'CARDINAL' => array(
		(int) 0 => '16',
		(int) 1 => 'one',
		(int) 2 => '5',
		(int) 3 => 'one',
		(int) 4 => '16'
	),
	'GPE' => array(
		(int) 0 => 'Nagpal',
		(int) 1 => 'Haryana'
	)
)
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '756481',
		'acts' => 'Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975; <a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 14 and 16',
		'appealno' => 'S.B.C.W.P. No. 4602/1996',
		'appellant' => 'Sanjay Kumar Rawal',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Sanjay Kumar Rawal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.',
		'casenote' => ' - 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.  -  Strong reliance is placed on the proviso to the aforesaid definition of 'family'.The proviso reads as under :Provided that if no such member of the family be eligible for getting benefit under these rules, the benefit available under these Rules may be extended to any other close relative of the deceased to be named by the widow or the Guardian of the children of the deceased with the specific approval of the Deptt. ' 6. In the instant case, admittedly, the son of the deceased was eligible for getting benefit under the rules and he did not like to take the benefit.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Bharat Bhushan Pareek, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-12-02',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' N.L. Tibrewal, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">N.L. Tibrewal, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner who is grandson of late Shri Sadhu Ram is seeking mandamus and direction to the respondents for providing him employment/ appointment on compassionate ground under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying while in service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules). It is stated that late Shri Sadhu Ram was employed in Education Department as Teacher Gr. III and while he was in service, he died on December 30, 1984. It appears that he left Shri Bhagwan Sahai (son) and his wife Smt. Hazari Devi behind him. According to the petitioner, he moved an application on March 16, 1994 for getting appointment under the Rules of 1975. His claim was rejected on the ground that he was not entitled to get appointment under the Rules.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the claim of the petitioner has been wrongly denied as the benefit under the Rules could be extended to any other close relative of the deceased to be named by the widow.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The scheme of the rules of 1975 has the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground to mitigate the hardship due to the death of the bread earner in the family. It cannot be disputed that the appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the equality clause under Article 14, otherwise, any such appointment merely on the ground of being a dependent of an ex-employee of the State, shall be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The question of appointment of one of the dependants of an employee of the State,dying while in service has assumed importance and cases have come before this Court where the benefit has been obtained by misusing the provisions of the Rules. Hence, it has become necessary that there should be a proper check and balance in providing such employment/ appointments.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1995-I-LLJ-798), the Apex Court has held that as a rule, appointment in public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground was an exception to the aforesaid rule, taking into consideration the fact of death of the employee while in service and leaving his family without any means of livelihood . In such cases, the object is to enable the family to tide over sudden crisis. It was also laid down that such appointments on compassionate grounds have to be made in accordance with rules, regulations or administrative instructions and taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. Then their Lordships observed as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is obvious from the above observations that the High Court endorses the policy of the State Government to make compassionate appointment in posts equivalent to the posts held by the deceased employees and above classes III and IV. It is unnecessary to reiterate that these observations are contrary to law. If the dependent of the deceased employee finds it below his dignity to accept the post offered, he is free not to do so. The post is not offered to cater to his status but to see the family through the economic calamity.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> It was also impressed that appointments on compassionate ground cannot be made after lapse of reasonable period which must be specified in the rules because the right to suchemployment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future.' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. In the instant case, the Government employee Sadhuram had died in the year 1984. He had left one son and his wife as dependents. No appointment was sought by the son probably due to the fact that he was engaged in business. The petitioner who is grandson of the deceased Government servant cannot be dependent on the deceased Government servant. He also does not fall within the definition of 'family' as provided under the Rules of 1975, which includes wife or husband, sons and unmarried or 'widow daughters and son/daughter adopted according to the provisions of law by the deceased Government servant,' who were dependent on the deceased Government servant. Strong reliance is placed on the proviso to the aforesaid definition of 'family'. The proviso reads as under :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Provided that if no such member of the family be eligible for getting benefit under these rules, the benefit available under these Rules may be extended to any other close relative of the deceased to be named by the widow or the Guardian of the children of the deceased with the specific approval of the Deptt. of Personnel.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the instant case, admittedly, the son of the deceased was eligible for getting benefit under the rules and he did not like to take the benefit. Hence, the proviso does not come into application. Otherwise also, the expression close relative of the deceased is so vague and wide that prima facie it appears to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances. I find that the claim of the petitioner to get appointment under the Rule of 1975 has been rightly declined.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Consequently, the petition fails and it is hereby dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1998)IIILLJ149Raj; 1997WLC(Raj)UC48',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and anr.',
		'sub' => 'Labour and Industrial',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '756481'
)
$pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'
$shops2 = null
include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

LAW: Article 14, Constitution, Constitution, the Rule of 1975

ORG: N.L. Tibrewal, Shri Sadhu Ram, the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants, Education Department, State, State, Court, Umesh Kumar, State of, the Apex Court, Lordships, the High Court, the State Government, III, Government, Guardian, Deptt, Personnel

NORP: J.1, Rules

DATE: 1975, December 30, 1984, March 16, 1994, 1975, 1975, the year 1984, 1975

PERSON: Shri Bhagwan Sahai, Smt, Hazari Devi, Articles 14, Sadhuram, Articles 14

CARDINAL: 16, one, 5, one, 16

GPE: Nagpal, Haryana