with the respondent-department (State Insurance and Provident Fund) at Udaipur. The appellant's father suffered brain stroke on 01.04.2023 and, on account of his permanent disability, which was to the tune of 75% in the form of 'Hemiplagia' (which renders one portion of the body as Paralyzed), was a cause to seek compassionate appointment for his son, i.e., the present appellant.

2. Learned counsel drew the attention of this Court to Rules 2(b) & 2(f) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Permanent Total Disabled Government Servants Rules, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2023), which define "Permanent Total Disabled Government Servant" and "Permanent Total Disability" respectively.

3. He further submits that though there was one more issue regarding the completion of 55 years of age as on 11.10.2023 on the date of issuance of medical certificate, but he did not address it because this has already been dealt with in his favour by the Hon'ble Single Bench. Thus, he places emphasis only on the point as to whether he would be covered under Rules 2(b) & 2(f) of the Rules of 2023. He further refers to paragraphs 10, 11, 12 & 13 of the judgment dated 25.04.2012 rendered by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Pitambar Das Manikpuri vs. National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors. (Writ Appeal No.131/2010). He submits that the ambit of 'accident' as a term is so wide and inclusive unless defined by the statute which should include the present condition where the physical health of the appellant has been impacted due to more than 75% of the disability.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant emphatically submits that a disability which is not voluntary in nature, and a medical condition which has arisen out of strain and stress of the job ought to be considered as an accident and thus, once it is an accident, the benefit of it being a disability ought to be given in the form of compassionate appointment in terms of the Rules of 2023. He further emphasizes that the term 'on duty' also does not have any impact on the present case because it is not that the appellant was not performing his duties in those days and just because the specified hours of the working were not the duration in which the incident occurred, he cannot be ousted from the benefit of compassionate appointment, which is a sort of compensation by the employer in terms of the disability arisen. He also seeks to persuade this Court that had there been a statutory definition of the term "accident", he would have been bound by the same. However, since no such definition exists and the Rules constitute beneficial welfare legislation, the widest possible interpretation ought to be adopted while adjudicating the claim for compassionate appointment. He further submits that the Single Bench has restricted itself to a strict interpretation of the Rules whereas the need of the hour is to apply the Golden Rule of Interpretation, whereby the broad sufferer in the shape of an employee like the appellant, who has suffered 75% of the disability, has become paralyzed, and is medically unfit to work due to a severe health condition, ought to be given the benefit of the Rules of 2023. Accordingly, the compassionate appointment be given.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the focus of the legislature while framing the Rules of 2023 was on something which would have occurred on the happening of an accident on duty as there