SHETHNA, J. - (1.) SHRI Akhtar Ali Usta, father of the petitioner Inayat Ali Usta was serving as a Senior Turner (Anudeshak) in the office of the Principal Industrial Training Institute, Bikaner. While on duty, he died on 2. 10. 1997, leaving behind him his widow Nasiban aged 50 years and four sons; (i) Mukhtiar Ahmed aged 34 years married and doing private job, (ii) Mushtak Ahmed, aged 32 years married and working in M. E. S. with Central Govt. (iii) Inayat Ali (present petitioner) aged 30 years married and unemployed and (iv) Ashraf Ali aged 25 years, married and studying.
(2.) ON 22. 10. 1997 widow Nasiban made an application (Annex. 2) for giving employment to her third son-Inayat Ali on the ground that he is unemployed, therefore, in her place he may be appointed on the death of her husband. The said request was rejected by the respondent department on the ground that his one of the brothers Shri Mushtak Ahmed is serving in M. E. S. in Central Govt. therefore, the petitioner filed writ petition before this Court, which was rejected by the learned Single Judge on 6. 10. 1998, against which this special appeal is filed. Learned counsel Shri Vyas submitted that the appellant- original petitioner should not have been denied appointment by the respondents on compassionate ground merely because his one of the brothers is serving in Central Govt. As against that, learned counsel Shri Lohra for the respondents submitted that Rules of 1975 were replaced by Rules of 1996 and under Rule 5, the petitioner was not entitled to get appointment because his one of the brothers is serving. It is true that the present appellant petitioner may be unemployed, but at the same time it cannot be said that he was dependent upon his father because his mother has in clear terms stated that he was married and aged 30 years. Such a grown up and mature son can never be dependent upon his father, particularly when he was married. Merely because he was unemployed that does not mean that he should get job on the death of his father and that too when his one of the brothers is serving in Central Govt. and another is settled down in life and doing some private job of business. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that appellant petitioner was not entitled to get appointment on compassionate ground and his writ petition was rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge, therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, this special appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. . ;