LAKSHMANAN, CJ. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Rajendra Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner appellant and Mr. P. C. Shah learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 19. 5. 1997, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, dismissing the writ petition, filed by the appellant, holding that the petitioner appellant is not entitled to get the employment under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying While in Service Rules, 1975 (for short `the Rules of 1975' ). The appellant is the brother of the deceased Government servant-Gajender Singh, who died in the year 1979 in an accident, while in service. According to the appellant, he is entitled to get the employment under the Rules of 1975 as having been nominated by the mother of the deceased under the Rules. Our attention was drawn to the definition of the word `family' which reads thus: " Family" - means the family of the deceased Government Servant and shall include wife or husband, sons and unmarried or `widow daughters and son/daughter adopted according to the provision of law by the deceased Government servant", who were dependent on the deceased Government servant: Provided that if no such member of the family be eligible for getting benefit under these Rules, the benefit available under these Rules may be extended to any other close relative of the deceased to be named by the widow or the Guardian of the children of the deceased with the specific approval of the Department of Personnel. " The proviso to the definition of the word `family' provides that if no member of the family is eligible for getting the benefit of employment namely; wife or husband, sons and unmarried or widow daughters and son/daughter adopted according to the provisions of law by the deceased Government servant, the benefit of these Rules may be extended to any other close relative of the deceased to be named by the widow or the guardian of the children of the deceased. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the mother of the deceased has nominated the appellant, who is the brother of the deceased Government servant. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to invoke the benefit of the proviso to the definition `family'. Our attention was drawn to the application made by the appellant for appointment on compassionate ground. In the certificate marked as Appendix-A, the date of birth of the appellant is shown as 1. 8. 1967. The appellant attained the majority on completion of 18 years on 1. 8. 1985. However, the appellant made his application for appointment only on 17. 1. 1994 i. e. after a delay of 9 years of attaining the majority. It is true that no limitation was prescribed under the Rules of 1975, but, now, under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 a limitation of 45 days has been prescribed for making an application for appointment on compassionate grounds. In the instant case, the application was made after a delay of 9 years. Though, the appellant succeeds on the ground that he is also a close relative of the deceased, but he fails on other grounds namely on the question of delay and laches in making the application for appointment on compassionate grounds. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. . ;