DINESH MEHTA, J. - (1.) By way of the present writ petition, Mr. Sushil Solanki, learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.01.2017 whereby the petitioner's application seeking compassionate appointment under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Appointment of Dependent of Deceased Employee) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules 1996") has been rejected. Facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the present writ petition are that one Smt. Rajshree Swami was appointed on the post of Junior Engineer (Diploma Holder) vide order dated 10.07.2015 and was working at Sub-Division Baneda, District Bhilwara. Smt. Rajshree Swami was expired on 29.09.2016 while she was working with the respondents. On her death the petitioner, being younger brother of the deceased employee submitted an application, seeking appointment on the compassionate ground, under the Rules of 1996. The said application came to be turned down by the Superintending Engineering - respondent No.2 indicating therein that applicant Kamal Kishore is brother of the deceased employee, who does not fall within the definition of 'dependent' given under Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996. It will not be out of place to reproduce the relevant provision contained in Clause-(c) of Rule 2 of the Rules of 1996:- "2(c) dependent means a spouse son, unmarried or widowed daughter, adopted son/daughter legally adopted by the deceased government servant during his/her life time and who are wholly dependent on the deceased Government servant at the time of his death".
(2.) Mr. Sushil Solanki, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being brother of the deceased employee was totally dependent on income of his sister and as such he falls within the ambit and scope of the expression 'dependent'.
(3.) He further argued that if the provision contained in Clause- (c) of Rule 2 of the Rules 1996 is interpreted in its true perspective, all family members, who are dependent on the deceased Government servant at the time of his/her death, are entitled for the compassionate appointment. In this regard, he invited the attention of this Court towards the phrase which begins after the word "and" and the same reads as under: " who are wholly dependent on the deceased Government servant at the time of his death". Bifurcating Clause-2(c), counsel for the petitioner contended that if an incumbent can satisfy that he was totally dependent upon the deceased Government servant, his case is required to be considered, under the rules, irrespective of the fact, whether he falls within the list of dependents given therein.;