Chhitar Lal vs State of Rajasthan and Another

Mohammad Rafiq, J.—Grievance of petitioner is that his application for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that he was found to be more than 40 years of age.

It is contended that the petitioner originally submitted application before the respondents on 25.06.2012. On that date, he was 39 years and 6 months old, however, the respondents demanded from the petitioner, another application on proforma along-with certified documents. Petitioner submitted that application on 06.08.2012. Petitioner submits that if the earlier application is considered, he would be within age as on that date he completed only 39 years and 6 months.

Learned Additional Government Counsel for respondents opposed the application and submitted that 40 years has wrongly been mentioned as maximum age and it is 38 years.

The respondents cannot be permitted to argue contrary to their own version given in the original order, according to which 40 years was the maximum age, within which a candidate could be considered for appointment.

When the petitioner originally submitted the application, he was 39 years and 6 months of age, and in the process some delay took place as the respondents required the petitioner to submit the application on proforma, which he submitted on 06.08.2012, on which date, may be he had crossed 40 years, even then he should be treated within age.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner on merits and may not reject his application for compassionate appointment on the ground of over age. The respondents to pass order in compliance within three months from the date it is submitted before them.