In a detailed judgment pronounced on 15th May 2026, the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench allowed a writ petition and directed the State authorities to reconsider the claim for compassionate appointment under The Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Permanent Total Disabled Government Servants Rules, 2023. The Court set aside the rejection order dated 14.05.2025 passed by the Director, Animal Husbandry Department, observing that the denial of consideration solely on the ground that the accident had taken place prior to the enforcement of the Rules was contrary to the provisions and the benevolent object of the Rules.
The facts of the case indicate that the father of the petitioner, who was working as Assistant Administrative Officer in the Animal Husbandry Department, suffered a serious accident on 1st July 2021 while on duty. As a result of the accident, he became permanently disabled, confined to bed, and remained in a vegetative state/coma. Competent medical authorities examined the case and issued a certificate of 85% permanent disability. A Unique Disability ID was also issued, and the medical board opined that the condition was non-progressive and not likely to improve, rendering him permanently unfit for government service.
After the notification of the 2023 Rules on 26th April 2023, an application was submitted seeking compassionate appointment for a dependent. However, the Director rejected the application vide order dated 14.05.2025 on the sole ground that the accident occurred before the Rules came into force and, therefore, the case was not covered under the new Rules. The Department took the view that the Rules applied only prospectively to cases where permanent disability occurred after 26.04.2023.
The High Court examined the relevant provisions of the 2023 Rules in detail. Rule 2(b) defines “Permanent Total Disabled Government Servant” as a person employed in connection with the affairs of the State who has suffered permanent total disability due to an accident while on duty. Rule 2(f) defines “Permanent Total Disability” with reference to specific categories of injuries resulting from an accident while on duty. The Court noted that neither of these definitions draws any distinction or creates any cut-off based on whether the accident occurred before or after the enforcement of the Rules. The only requirement is that the disability must have resulted from an accident while the government servant was on duty.
Rule 5, which lays down the conditions for appointment, also does not prescribe any demarcation based on the date of the accident. It provides that when a government servant suffers permanent total disability due to an accident while on duty, is declared permanently unfit by the Medical Board, and takes retirement on invalid pension, one of his dependents may be considered for appointment, subject to the conditions mentioned therein.
The Court held that the date of the accident is irrelevant under the scheme of the Rules. What is material is the existence of permanent total disability certified by the competent Medical Board and the fact that the government servant was on duty at the time of the accident. The rejection order, which introduced an artificial classification based on the date of the accident, was not supported by any provision of the Rules. Such an interpretation, the Court observed, defeats the very object for which the Rules were framed — to provide financial and social support to the family of a government servant who becomes incapacitated due to a duty-related accident.
Emphasizing the welfare nature of the legislation, the High Court stated that beneficial and welfare-oriented rules must be construed liberally so as to advance their humanitarian purpose rather than frustrate it by adopting a hyper-technical approach. In the absence of any express exclusion in the Rules for cases where the accident occurred prior to their enforcement, the authorities could not deny consideration by creating such a distinction. The Court further noted that on the date the Rules came into force, the father continued to be a government servant who had already been rendered permanently disabled due to a duty-related accident.
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. The order dated 14.05.2025 rejecting the application was quashed and set aside. The respondents were directed to reconsider the application afresh, without raising the objection relating to the date of the accident, and to grant compassionate appointment in accordance with the 2023 Rules if the applicant is otherwise found eligible, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
Case Details:
Court: Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Judgment Date: 15th May 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anand Sharma
Click HERE for full Judgment
Lawcutor 