The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'dependent' under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Rules, 1996 to include a 'widowed daughter-in-law' as a 'widowed daughter'.

JUDGMENT

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.03.2009, whereby the petitioner was declined compassionate appointment by Respondent No.2. Furthermore, the petitioner has sought direction(s) to the respondents for considering her application for compassionate appointment.

2. The facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are that the mother-in-law of the petitioner was appointed on the post of a ’Coolie’ in the Respondent-Department. However, on 15.07.2007, she died while working in harness with the said department. Immediately thereafter, within a period of 8 days, an application for compassionate appointment was filed by the petitioner’s husband i.e. deceased’s son, on 23.07.2007. Accordingly, respondent No.2 forwarded the said application for compassionate appointment to Superintendent Engineer, Jaipur for his due consideration. But unfortunately, the petitioner’s husband-Sh. Sawar Lal also died on 14.03.2008; leaving the petitioner widowed, with a responsibility of looking after herself as well as her three minor children. Therefore, being an uneducated lady, with no alternative source of employment, the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment on 03.03.2009 as per the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Rules, 1996 (hereinafter ’Rules of 1996’). However, vide letter dated 19.03.2009, respondent No.2 declined compassionate appointment to the petitioner on account of the fact that a ’daughter-in-law’ did not fall within the ambit of the term ’dependent’ as provided under the Rules of 1996.

3. In this background, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the legality and validity of the rejection letter dated 19.03.2009 and sought directions to the respondents for duly considering her case for compassionate appointment. At this juncture, it would be prudent to note that the present matter is pending since 2011; and in spite of several early hearing requests, it was not heard. Thus, the matter was finally heard today with the consent of both the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned actions of the respondents are contrary to the spirit of granting compassionate appointments under the Rules of 1996. In this regard, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner as well as her entire family, including the minor children, were solely dependent upon the petitioner’s mother-in-law for their survival.

Thus, the petitioner fell within the category of a ’dependent’ as provided in the Rules of 1996. It was further argued that Rule 2(c) of the said rules does not define the term ’family’. Rather, it defines the term ’dependent’. Hence, looking at the provision holistically, the term ’dependent’ would include all individuals who were financially dependent upon the deceased Government Servant for their survival. Hence, the petitioner would accordingly qualify for compassionate appointment in the said RespondentDepartment.

5. Learned counsel further argued that vide order dated 19.03.2009, Respondent No.2 had failed to consider the fact that the petitioner was an uneducated widow, having the responsibility of three minor children upon her shoulders. Moreover, it was further submitted that on account of the above mentioned reasons, the petitioner was facing financial hardships. Thus, the respondents erred in declining compassionate appointment to the petitioner. In support of the said contentions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Pinki Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2012 (1) WLC 431.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the order dated 19.03.2009 is absolutely legal and is strictly in consonance with the Rules of 1996. In this regard, learned counsel submitted that as per the Rules of 1996, a ’daughter-in-law’ of the deceased-Government Servant does not fall within the definition of a ’dependent