Anupinder Singh Grewal, J.

The instant appeal is directed against the orders of the Single Bench dated 17.09.2012 & 30.01.2013, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking appointment on compassionate ground and application for its review respectively were dismissed.

2. The mother of the appellant, who was working as Nurse Grade-I, expired on 29.05.1993. The appellant had preferred an application for appointment on compassionate grounds, which was rejected vide order dated 29.07.1994 on the ground that he was minor. The appellant, on attaining majority and after passing the Secondary Examination, preferred another application for compassionate appointment on 16.07.2007, which was forwarded to the competent authority on 19.07.2007, on which no action was taken by the respondents. He preferred S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2269/2008, which was disposed of with the direction to the respondents to decide his application within three months. Vide order dated 21.05.2008, the application of the appellant for compassionate appointment was rejected. The appellant then challenged this order by preferring another writ petition before the Single Bench, which was dismissed on 17.09.2012. The review application filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the Single Bench vide order dated 30.01.2013. These orders are impugned in the instant appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the application of the appellant should have been considered under the Rajasthan (Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying while in Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of 1975”), which were in force at the time of the death of his mother and the authorities could not have rejected his application for compassionate appointment invoking Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1996”) as these Rules were not in force at the time of death of his mother.

4. Learned Government Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the Rules of 1975 are not applicable since the same have been repealed by the Rules of 1996, and that as per the Rules of 1996, the appellant is not entitled for compassionate appointment.

5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

6. At the outset, we deem it appropriate to refer to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996, which reads as under:

“5. Appointment subject to certain conditions :-

(1) When a Government servant dies while in service one of his/her dependents may be considered for appointment in Government service subject to the condition that employment under these rules shall not be admissible in cases where the spouse or at least one of the sons, unmarried daughters, adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter of the deceased Government servant is already employed on regular basis under the central/any State Government or Statutory Board, Organization/Corporation owned or controlled wholly or partially by the Central/any State Government at the time of death of the Government servant.

Provided that this condition shall not apply where the widow seeks employment for herself.

(2) Appointment under these rules shall be given on the condition that the person appointed on compassionated ground shall maintain properly the other family members who were dependent on the deceased Government servant and on furnishing an undertaking in writing that he/she shall maintain properly the other family members who were dependent on the deceased Government servant. If subsequently, at any time, it is proved that such dependent family members are being neglected or are not being not being maintained properly by him, the appointment may be terminated by the Appointing Authority after providing an opportunity to the compassionate appointee by way of issue of show cause notice asking him to explain why his services should not be terminate