1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 198/1997 (Smt. Leela & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) ......... Date of Order : 17/11/2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Rameshwar Hedau for the petitioners. Mr. Ravi Bhansali for the respondents. BY THE COURT By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent to appoint petitioner No.1 on the post of Class-IV employee on compassionate ground under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Govt. Servants Dying while in Service Rules, 1975 (since repealed) (for short 'the Rules of 1975' hereinafter). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing for the respondents. The husband of the petitioner No.2 and the father of 2 petitioner No.1, Shri Vala Variya was an employee of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short 'the RSEB' hereinafter) which has now been bifurcated into different companies like Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited and Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited etc., working on the post of Chowkidar and while in service of the RSEB, he died on 29.12.1990 leaving behind his wife petitioner No.2 aged 55 years and petitioner No.1 married daughter. The petitioner No.1, the married daughter, claimed appointment on compassionate ground which came to be declined by the respondents. The petitioner No.2 wife of the deceased has already attained the age of superannuation and therefore, she did not claim compassionate appointment. The respondents declined the compassionate appointment on the ground that she being married daughter is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. According to learned counsel for the respondents, as per the rules governing such appointment, the married daughter of an employee of the erstwhile RSEB who died while in service, is not covered within the definition of “family” and therefore, the respondents are justified in declining appointment to her on compassionate ground. Section 2(f) of Rules of 1975 defines the expression “family” which reads as under:- 3 “2(f) “Family” means the family of the deceased Government servant and shall include wife or husband, sons and unmarried or widow daughters, who were dependent on the deceased Government servant.” In the instant case, the death of the employee was on 29.12.1990 and he was at the verge of retirement and now more than 18 years have elapsed and therefore, it cannot be said that harness on the death of Govt. servant would continue for such a long period. In this view of the matter, none of the petitioners are entitled for compassionate appointment. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp