A widowed daughter-in-law qualifies as a 'dependent' for compassionate appointment under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Rules, 1996, via a purposive and liberal interpretation of the statute to fulfill the legislative goal of providing support in times of distress.

Order

09/04/2026

1. The petitioner, Sunderi widow of late Shri Chetram aged about 38 years, has filed the instant writ petition with the prayer to give her appointment on compassionate basis in place of her father-in-law who was working with the respondents and died while in service on 19.11.2016.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment against father-in-law, who was working with the respondents.

The application was filed on time, however, with some delay, which is not serious and considering the same, the respondents forwarded the application to the Higher Authorities, however, the same was not considered and rejected by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner is daughter-in-law and not a dependent in terms of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Rules, 1996 (for short 'Rules of 1996' for short). Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that daughter-in law is a dependent and the issue in this regard is no more res integra as Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.383/2023 titled as State of Rajasthan and Anr. Vs. Sushila Devi , decided on 04.07.2023, examined the same issue in the light of the previous judgment passed by this Court and on that basis daughter-in-law 'being a dependent' was held entitled for compassionate appointment. In view thereof, he prayed that she may also be considered for appointment on compassionate basis in terms of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in terms of Sushila Devi (supra).

4. Learned counsel for the respondents - State though objected to the appointment, however, could not dispute the fact that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sushila Devi (supra) has considered the similar issue and daughter-in-law was held to be eligible for compassionate appointment by liberal interpretation of the term 'dependent' under the Rules of 1996.

5. This Court considered the facts of the case, where petitioner the daughter-in-law informed the respondents that, as her husband died on 25.05.2020 and after his death she is the only member in the house to take care of all the dependents in the family. The Division Bench in the case of Sushila Devi (supra) has dealt with the similar issue, in which it examined the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in the case of Smt. Pinki Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.¹2012 (1) WLC (Raj.) 431.

6. The Division Bench in the case of Sushila Devi (supra) considered the definition of the term 'dependent' and by doing liberal interpretation of the term accepted the judgment of the learned Single Judge, as passed in the case of Smt. Pinki (supra) and directed the respondents to consider the case of the daughter-in-law for compassionate appointment. The relevant part of the judgment passed in the case of Sushila Devi (supra) reads as under:-

"19. In the present case, when the government employee died, her son applied for compassionate appointment but before he could be granted compassionate appointment, he also died. In these exceptional circumstances the writ petitioner, widowed daughter-in-law applied for compassionate appointment. Once the dependency of the writ petitioner is not in dispute, we are of the view that the provisions contained in Section 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 which define ‘dependent’ needs to be liberally construed so as to include not only a widowed daughter but also a widowed daughter-in-law. In the case of Smt. Pinky Vs. State of Rajasthan & O