The Rajasthan High Court has firmly rejected the State’s contention that a son ceases to be a “dependent” of his deceased father solely because of his parents’ divorce and his residence with the mother. A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu dismissed the State’s special appeal, affirming the single judge’s order granting compassionate appointment to the respondent, Ashish Saxena, under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996.
The case originated from the death of Ashok Saxena, a government servant, on September 30, 2006. His son, Ashish, promptly applied for compassionate appointment on November 6, 2006—well within the prescribed timeframe. However, the authorities demanded a succession certificate, which he duly obtained. Despite this, his claim was inexplicably stalled and denied, prompting a writ petition that the single judge allowed on January 18, 2017, directing his appointment.
Challenging this, the State argued that post-divorce, Ashish had been living with his mother and thus was no longer dependent on his father. They further claimed he was now around 39 years old, rendering him ineligible. The appellants also pointed to an appointment already extended to the deceased’s second wife as a bar to Ashish’s claim.
Upholding the single judge’s decision, the bench scrutinized the definition of “dependent” under Rule 2(c) of the 1996 Rules, observing:
“(c) ‘Dependent’ means, –
- Spouse, or
- Son including son legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life time, or
- unmarried/widowed/divorced daughter including daughter legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life time or
- married daughter, if no other dependent of the deceased Government servant mentioned in clause (ii) and (iii) above is available, or
- mother, father, unmarried brother or unmarried sister in case of unmarried deceased Government servant,
who was wholly dependent on the deceased Government servant at the time of his/her death.”
A bare reading reveals that a “son” is expressly included, the Court noted. “Merely because divorce had taken place between the parents, the status of the petitioner as a son of the deceased government servant cannot be negated. The denial of compassionate appointment to the petitioner on this ground was clearly untenable.”
The bench also dismissed the succession certificate demand as “absolutely unwarranted,” given Ashish’s undisputed status as the legitimate son. Regarding the second wife’s appointment, it clarified that it occurred after Ashish’s application and under the separate widow quota, not impinging on his independent entitlement.
Highlighting administrative lapses, the Court remarked: “It is strange to note that although the petitioner had applied within almost a month of the death of his father and was within the eligible age for appointment, but however, the petitioner has been denied his legitimate claim by the respondent-department on absolute frivolous grounds.” It further held that delays due to bureaucratic hurdles or litigation cannot prejudice the applicant’s rights, especially when he approached within time.
The bench found no merit in the age-related objection, attributing the lapse to State inaction rather than the petitioner. Affirming the single judge’s comprehensive consideration of all aspects, the appeal was dismissed, with pending applications also disposed of.
This ruling reinforces the compassionate scheme’s intent to provide immediate financial relief to families of deceased employees, emphasizing that familial disruptions like divorce do not strip children of statutory benefits.
Case Title: State of Rajasthan through the Chief Engineer, Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, Banswara v. Ashish Saxena & Ors. | D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 640/2018
Click HERE for full judgment.
Lawcutor 