- (1.) The widowed daughter-in-law of the deceased Government Servant late Smt. Prem Devi, who was Class IV employee in the respondent Medical and Health Department of the State is seeking appointment on compassionate grounds under the Rules of 1996. The said widowed daughter-in-law is the sole legal representative of the deceased Government Servant and no other bread-winner had applied for compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1996 but the application filed by the present petitioner has been rejected by the impugned order Annexure-2 dated 30.01.2013. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in this Court on 24.07.2013 with the following prayers: "1. That the order impugned dated 30.01.2013 (Annexure 2) passed by the Deputy Director (Admn.), Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur, may kindly be quashed and set aside. 2. That by an appropriate writ order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to give the compassionate appointment to the petitioner, from the date of her application. 3. That any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems proper in facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favor of the petitioner." The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Deelip Kawadia, submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is no more res integra with the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Pinki v. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2012 1 WLC(Raj) 431 and the present matter is covered by the same. This Court in the case of Smt. Pinki v. State of Rajasthan and Other has held as under: "16. The question now arise that if the law making authority was aware about the position of "widowed daughter-in-law" then why in the category of dependents under Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996, she has not been placed in explicit? To resolve this knot, a look on the relations expressly referred in the definition of dependents is desirable. The relations of spouse, son, adopted son, unmarried or adopted unmarried daughter in no way can include the relation of "widowed daughter-in-law", however, the term "widowed daughter" appears to be quote wide and that may include "widowed daughter-in-law" for the purpose of these rules. 17. If the rule makers were intending to exclude "widowed daughter-in-law" from the category of dependents, then they would have include "widowed daughter" in the category of dependents, employment of whom makes appointment on compassionate grounds inadmissible under the Rules of 1996, but it has not been done. Meaning thereby, a "widowed daughter" is also a "widowed daughter-in-law", who is supposed to serve her in-laws and children. Thus, it appears that the term "widowed daughter-in-law" is part of "widowed daughter". 23. An apprehension may be there that "widowed daughter-in-law" may not support her in-laws family or dependents of the deceased government servant, but such apprehension is totally ill-founded. The Rules of 1996 clearly mentions that while making appointment on compassionate grounds concurrence of all other dependents of a deceased government servant is must. The Rule 5(b) of the Rules of 1996 also takes all necessary care of such eventualities. 24. The upshot of the consideration is that "widowed daughter-in-law" is a dependent of a government servant as defined under Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996. As such, this petition for writ deserves acceptance. Hence, the same is allowed. The decision of the respondents for not giving appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds as per the Rules of 1996 is declared illegal. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner as a Class-IV employee in accordance with the provisions of the Rules of 1996, on or before 14th October, 2011."
(2.) The learned Government Counsel, Ms. Shweta Bora, appearing on behalf of the respondents is not in a position to controvert the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner but submitted that in the case referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the deceased Government servant was the father-in-law of the widowed daughter-in-law and in the present case, the deceased Government servant is the mother-in-law of the widowed daughter-in-law. In the opinion of this Court, this different as pointed out by the learned Government Counsel would hardly make any difference and, therefore, the rejection of the application of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on account of death of her mother-in-law who was a Class-IV employee in the respondent Medical and Health Department cannot be sustained and the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed in the same terms of Smt. Pinki v. State of Rajasthan and Other .
(3.) Accordingly and in view of the above, this writ petition is allowed in the same terms of Smt. Pinki v. State of Rajasthan and Other . The impugned rejection order Annexure-2 dated 30.01.2013 is quashed and set aside. The respondents namely, the Deputy Director, Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for giving her appointment on compassionate grounds on account of death of her mother-in-law in accordance with the Rules of 1996 and in terms of judgment in Smt. Pinki v. State of Rajasthan and Other , within a period of two months from today. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.;