1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.974/2002. : : Suman Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 28.1.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Niklesh Katra for S.K.Jain for the petitioner. Mr. Zakir Hussain, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 9.10.2001 whereby application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been dismissed. Shri Niklesh Katra, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner though was married with one Kamal Sain, but was not having good relations with her husband and at that time her mother died. Petitioner filed divorce petition and divorce was eventually granted by mutual consent on 10.5.2000. Petitioner was thus not only living with her mother but was also wholly dependent on her when she died. Respondents have arbitrarily rejected application of the petitioner without considering the fact that 2 petitioner has separated from her husband long ago and started living with her mother. Petitioner has submitted decree of divorce before respondents but no heed was paid to the same. Hence, the present writ petition. Shri Zakir Hussain, learned counsel for the respondents argued that as per the definition of dependent as given in Rule 2 (c) of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 a married daughter would not be covered in the purview of dependent at the time of death of her mother. Decree of divorce has been passed much subsequent there to. Arguments aforesaid would show that death of petitioner's mother has been taken place on 9.12.1999 is not in dispute and it is also not in dispute that the decree of divorce was passed on 10.5.2000. As a matter of fact, the date on which the mother, who was serving the respondents died, the petitioner was a married daughter and, therefore, her case cannot be covered by definition of dependent as given in Rule 2 (c) of the Rules of 1996. Even if divorce of petitioner was pending the fact remains that decree of divorce was passed much subsequent thereafter. On the date of death of petitioner's mother she was neither unmarried 3 daughter nor widow so as to covered within the definition of Rule 2 (c) of Rules, 1996. When the rule making authority does not cover a divorced daughter within the definition of dependent even that fact also cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.22.