ORDER :

1. Heard.

2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 19.12.2022 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent seeking compassionate appointment has been allowed.

3. The facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved in this Special Appeal are that the mother-in-law of the respondent, who was working on the post of ‘Coolie’ in the Respondent-Department died on 15.07.2007. Immediately thereafter, within a period of 8 days, an application for compassionate appointment was made by the son (husband of the writ petitioner) on 23.07.2007. While the application of the son of the deceased employee was under process for grant of compassionate appointment, having been forwarded by respondent No. 2 to Superintendent Engineer, Jaipur, an unfortunate incident took place when the son/applicant Sawar Lal (husband of the writ petitioner) also died on 14.03.2008. He left behind the writ petitioner, his widow and three minor children in lurch, who were fully dependent on the deceased employee. She made an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 03.03.2009 as provided under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Rules, 1996 (‘Rules of 1996’ in short). The application, however, came to be rejected on 19.03.2009 on the basis that under the Rules, daughter-in-law is not entitled to compassionate appointment, as she is not included in the definition of dependent family members under the Rules. This led to filing of the writ petition which came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge.

4. Learned Single Judge while granting relief to the respondent-writ petitioner placed reliance upon an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Smt. Pinki vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2012 (1) WLC (Raj.) 431 as also the order passed by Division Bench in D.B. SAW No. 1915/2011 decided on 05.01.2012, dismissing appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would argue that the learned Single Judge committed illegality in allowing the writ petition and ignoring the clear provisions in Section 2(c) of the Rules of 1996, which do not include within the scope and ambit of definition of ‘dependent’ a widowed daughter-in-law though it includes widowed daughter. He would submit that it was not permissible for the Court to add or reject words. According to him, rightly or wrongly, the Rules do not provide for compassionate appointment to a widowed daughter-in-law. Unless the Rules permit compassionate appointment to a daughter-in-law, no writ of mandamus could be issued by the Court directing the appellants to grant compassionate appointment to daughter-in-law. In support of his submissions, he places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the Director of Trasuries in Karnataka and Another vs. V. Somyashree. Learned counsel for the appellant also places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Sapna vs. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9686/2020, decided on 04.12.2020.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent -writ petitioner would submit that the order of learned Single Judge is based on an earlier order of this Court in the case of Smt. Pinky vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (supra), wherein Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 containing definition of ‘dependent’ has been interpreted so as to include a ‘widowed daughter-in-law’ as well. He would submit that the object and purpose of the Compassionate Appointment Rules is to provide immediate relief to the family of the deceased employee, who were dependent on the deceased employee.

7. In the present case, it is contended that initially when the government servant died, she was survived by many dependents which included son, daughter-in-law and three minor children. The son made an application for grant of compassionate appointment which wa