Hon'ble TRIVEDI, J.—Heard on the question of admission.

2. The husband of the petitioner died during the course of operation "Pawan" in Sri Lanka. Thereafter, the petitioner has applied for grant of compassionate appointment to her unmarried daughter. However, during the course of pendency of application for compassionate appointment, petitioner's daughter got married. In such circumstances, the Collector, Jaipur has rejected the application for compassionate appointment as her case was not covered under Rule 2(c) of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (for short, 'Rules of 1996'). Hence, prayer has been made to consider the case of petitioner's daughter for compassionate appointment by relaxing the provisions of Rules of 1996 as an exceptional case. Further prayer has been made for declaring the non-inclusion of married daughter in the definition of dependants as contained in the Rules of 1996 as invalid.

3. Shri M.F. Baig, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the married daughter ought to have been included in the definition of dependants in the Rules of 1996. The exclusion is arbitrary and thus, definition of Rule 2(c) is unconstitutional.

4. Definition of "Dependant" is contained in Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996, which is quoted below:-

"2(c) Dependant means a spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, (adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter) legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life time and who were wholly dependant on the deceased Government servant at the time of his/her death."

5. In our considered opinion, it is hot for the Courts to expand the definition of the dependant. It is matter of policy. The dependants are defined to be spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter, legally adopted by the deceased Government servant. Married daughter cannot be said to be dependant on the deceased employee. The definition of dependant is with a view to give appointment to spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, widow, etc. who are real dependants of the deceased. Such matters are within the purview of the policy of the State Government. It is for the State Government to define such matters and it is not for the Court to widen the scope of the Rules as compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The definition in Rule 2(c) cannot be said to be unconstitutional and arbitrary in any manner. Exclusion of married daughter from the purview of dependants is appropriate. She is not dependant on premarital family. It is trite law that Courts cannot enlarge scope of such policy/rules. It is not for the Court to rewrite the policy/rules. The provision of Rule 2(c) cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary in any manner.

6. No compassionate appointment can be ordered dehors of scheme as held in Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India & Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 209. The Apex Court has laid down thus:

"20. Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind:

(i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme.

(ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time.

(iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document