KUMAR, CJ. - (1.) THE case of the petitioner in this petition is that his mother Smt. Shanti was in Government service as a Sweeper (Class IV employee ). She was working for the Municipal Board, Bhinmal. She was a permanent employee working with Municipal Board, Bhinmal. She died on 5th July 1993 while in service. On her death the petitioner applied for job as a Sweeper in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan (Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules' ). This application was made on 18. 08. 1993.
(2.) THE petitioner also filed an affidavit dated 28. 08. 1993 stating that his mother Shanti was a permanent employee of respondent No. 2 on the post of Sweeper, she died on 5. 07. 1993. Shanti had left behind four children, including the petitioner. THE petitioner alone was living with Shanti at the time of her death and other children had separated during the lifetime of Shanti. THE other children of Shanti were not making any claim for appointment in lieu of death of their mother. Vide order dated 23. 08. 1993. the petitioner was given appointment to the post of Sweeper, as per the 1975 Rules. THE petitioner joined duties in pursuance of the said appointment order. The father of the petitioner was also in Government service at the relevant time. After having given appointment to the petitioner under the 1975 Rules, in lieu of death of his mother Shanti, it appears that the respondents reopened the issue and inview of the fact that his father was already in Government service, treating the petitioner as dependent on his father, revoked the appointment order vide communication dated 30. 09. 1993. It is stated in the impugned letter dated 30. 09. 1993 that inview of Circular dated 11th August 1987, a person whose father is alive, cannot be said to be dependent on the mother and, therefore, the appointment given to the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner has challenged the said order by way of the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to sub-rule (f) of Rule 2 which contains the definition of family. The same is reproduced as under :- " (f) "family" means the family of the deceased government Servant and shall included wife or husband, sons and unmarried "widow daughters and son/daughter adopted according to the provisions of law by the deceased Government Servant" who were dependent on the deceased Government servant;" Rule 5 is the main rule which entitles a person to seek employment on account of death of a member of family. The said rule is reproduced as under :- " 5. Recruitment of a member of the deceased:- In case of "deceased Government Servants" one member of his family who is not already employed under the Central/state Government or Statutory Board/organisations/corporations owned or controlled by the Central/state Government shall, on making an application for the purpose, be given a suitable employment in Government service without delay only against an existing vacancy, which is not within the purview of the State Public Service Commission in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules, provided such member fulfils the educational qualifications prescribed for the post and is also otherwise qualified for Government service. In the event of non-availability of a vacancy or any of the members of the family, being unqualified or minor is not found suitable or eligible for immediate employment, then such cases should be considered immediately on the availability of the post or any one of them becomes qualified or eligible for such employment under these Rules. " A perusal of rule 5 shows that the said rule creates a right in favour of a dependent of a deceased Government Servant to seek Government employment on the death of the family member. The petitioner invoked the said rule and got employment in view of the fact that his mother had died while in Government Service. The state of the respondents as indicated in the impugned communication dated 30. 09. 1993 that when the father is alive a person is to be considered as dependent on him only, does not appear to be correct. When both the parents of a person are working and living together, it cannot be said that the person is dependent on one or the other alone and not on both. It was a composite family. Both the parents were in Government service. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner would be treated as dependent only on the father and not the mother. In pursuance of the communication dated 30. 09. 1993 ultimately the termination order is said to have passed on 14. 10. 1993 and the services of the petitioner stood terminated with effect from that date.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to a decision of this Court in Gulshan Chopra vs. State of Rajasthan and others (1), where a learned Single Judge of this Court had taken a similar view. The judgment of the Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench as the appeal against the said judgment filed by the Government was dismissed. It is to be seen that the key words for the purpose of deciding the controversy in the present case are "dependant on the deceased Government Servant" as contained in the definition of the word "family" contained in sub-rule (f) of Rule 2 of the 1975 Rules. When both the parents are in Government employment and are living together, and the son is also living with the parents as part of the family, it cannot be said that the son is dependant only on one of the parents, i. e. the father. This petition is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned communication dated 30. 09. 1993 and the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner in pursuance thereof, is, hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to provide employment to the petitioner as a Class IV employee forthwith. The learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly agreed that the petitioner will not make any claim for arrears of salary etc. from the date of the termination of his services, till appointment in pursuance of this order. This petition is disposed of. . ;