The court ruled that 'daughter-in-law' qualifies as a dependent under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment Rules, emphasizing purposive interpretation to achieve legislative intent.

JUDGMENT :

1. Looking to the nature of relief sought in the writ petition with regard to compassionate appointment and with the consent of counsel for both the parties, the matter was heard finally at the admission stage.

2. Brief facts of the instant case are that petitioner filed the instant writ petition stating therein that she performed marriage with one Shri Mangesh Parcha on 22.11.2009. After marriage, she has been living with her in-laws. Her mother-in-law Smt. Sohani Devi was the sole bread earner in the family, who was serving as Safai Karmi in the office of respondent-Municipal Corporation. She was holding substantive post in the respondent-Municipal Corporation. Father-in-law of the petitioner had already expired and her mother-in-law, who was having only source of earning in the entire family, also unfortunately expired on 31.01.2023. Her husband is an unemployed person and is having no source of income.

3. It has been stated in the memo of writ petition by the petitioner that on account of sudden death of late Smt. Sohani Devi (mother-in-law) of the petitioner, the entire family went under deep financial crisis and they were striving hard for maintaining the family. Hence, the petitioner submitted an application under the provisions of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependent of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (for short, as referred to hereinafter ‘ the Rules of 1996’) for seeking compassionate appointment in place of her mother-in-law, who died on 31.01.2023 while in service and left the entire family in harness. As per the petitioner, the application was filed within the time prescribed under the Rules of 1996 for seeking compassionate appointment. The application was supported that ‘No Objection Certificate’ of other family members, who gave their consent for appointing the petitioner on compassionate in place of deceased Smt. Sohani Devi (mother-in- law) of the petitioner. The petitioner further states that her application for compassionate appointment was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Municipal Corporation, Ajmer, vide letter/order dated 04.05.2023 solely on the ground that ‘daughter-in-law’ is not considered to be a dependent under the Rules of 1996. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the aforesaid order/communication dated 04.05.2023 and further sought a direction against the respondents to grant her compassionate appointment on the post of Safai Karmi in place of her deceased mother-in-law.

4. Counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the writ petition by raising an objection that compassionate appointment can be granted within the frame-work of Rule and as per definition of Rule 2(C) of the Rules of 1996, ‘daughter-in-law’ cannot be considered as ‘dependent’ and, therefore, the application submitted by the petitioner for seeking compassionate appointment was rightly rejected by the respondents.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and also perused the record.

6. Sole question arises in the instant matter is as to whether ‘daughter-in-law’ can be considered as dependent of deceased employee or not?

7. Rule 2(C) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 is reproduced as under:-

“Dependent” means:

(i) Spouse, or (ii) Son including son legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life time, or (iii) unmarried/widowed/divorced daughter including daughter legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life time, or (iv) married daughter, if no other dependent of the deceased Government servant mentioned in clause (ii) and (iii) above is available, or (v) mother, father, unmarried brother or unmarried sister in case of unmarried deceased Government servant, who was wholly dependent on the deceased Government servant at the time of his/ her death.

8. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that impugned communication/order dated 04.05.2