The main legal point established in the judgment is that the term 'widowed daughter' includes 'widowed daughter-in-law' as a 'dependent' under Rule 2(c) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996.

JUDGMENT

Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the rejection of her application seeking compassionate appointment by order dated 03.06.2021 (Annex. 5).

2. It is inter-alia indicated in the petition that petitioner's mother-in-law was working on the post of Sweeper and died on 01.09.2018. After her death, petitioner's husband i.e. Sh. Vishnu applied for compassionate appointment in place of his mother, however, before appointment could be accorded, he died on 16.12.2019. The petitioner, on account of death of her husband, applied for compassionate appointment with the respondents being the daughter-in-law of deceased Government servant Smt. Madhu, however, her application has been rejected by order impugned while observing that under Rule 2(c) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996, the widowed daughter-in-law is not included.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the issue raised in the present petition, is squarely covered by order in the case of Smt. Pinki v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9177/2010 decided on 12.09.2011.

4. The definition of 'widowed daughter' includes 'widowed daughter-in-law' and therefore, denial by the respondents in this regard is not justified. Further submissions have been made that the order in the case of Smt. Pinki has been upheld by the Division Bench in DBSAW No. 1915/2011 decided on 05.01.2012.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that the interpretation put by the learned Single Judge on the definition of dependent by coming to the conclusion that the widowed daughter would include widowed daughter-in-law, is still open to interpretation/determination as the Division Bench, though dismissed the appeal, however, has left the question open to be adjudicated in future. Further submissions have been made that the Division Bench decided the appeal by referring to the family circumstances, though the family circumstances in the present case also may be similar, the legal aspect needs to be decided.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

7. The status of the petitioner is not in dispute, wherein she is the widowed daughter-in-law of deceased Government servant, Smt. Madhu, and is seeking compassionate appointment, as though initially her husband Sh. Vishnu claimed compassionate appointment, however, before the same could be accorded to him, he died.

8. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Pinki (supra) inter-alia came to the following conclusion:

".... The legal position that emerges from the entire discussion is that for the purpose of the Rules of 1996 the term "widowed daughter" includes a "Widowed daughter-in-law", as such, she is a "dependent" as per Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996. This inclusion serves the purpose of the Rules of 1996 and it is in consonance to the objects of the Rules. This inclusion is also not having any effect of amendment in the Rules. On the other hand, non-inclusion of "widowed daughter-in-law" in the ambit of dependents is having adverse effect on the purpose and objects of the statute concerned, as happening in present set of facts."

9. The Division Bench, in appeal arising out of judgment in the case of Smt. Pinki (supra), while deciding the appeal observed as infra:

"Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Without going into the legal niceties and strict interpretation of law which we consider it improper to examine in the facts of the case, we are rather obliged to feel that substantial justice would be done, if the State Government implements the writ issued by the Writ court by giving the respondent appointment in the State Government services.

It cannot be disputed that now there is n