JUDGMENT 1. - It is a dismal fact that the Government of Rajasthan framed the Rules known as the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying while in Service Rules, 1975 as a welfare legislation, but the same are not being followed with the spirit with which these rules were framed by the rule making authority. It has been noticed by this court that large number of such cases are coming up to this court on behalf of the dependants of the Government Servants dying while in service for the enforcement of their rights under the aforesaid Rules. Mostly the applications filed by such dependants before the Government are being made to send without any justification and the same are not even being processed properly as has happened in this case. It would have been a different matter if there are no vacancies and the appointment cannot be given to the dependants of Government Servants dying while in service, but it appears that the applications filed by such dependants are, as a matter of fact, not even looked at with the approach with which they are supposed to be considered and only a scant regard is shown to the hardships and needs of such applicants defeating the laudable object of the welfare legislation. It is rather regrettable that the pious idea and the orientation with which these rules were enacted are being made abortively the executive in action. This case is illustrious of such inaction, because here is a case in which the poor petitioner, whose father had been appointed as Beldar way back on 1st January, 1975 and latter declared to be semi-permanent on 16th June, 1978 with effect from 1st January, 1977, had served for 14 years on the post of Beldar; being the eldest son applied for a suitable job. As the things would have it, objection was raised that he had not applied in the prescribed from: Later on, the petitioner made an application in the prescribed form on 24th April, 1981, but no heed was paid to this application and, it appears that no action was taken thereupon. Thereafter a notice of demand of justice was given on behalf of the petitioner on 30th June, 1989. It is sorry state of affairs that not a word in reply was sent to the petitioner even in response to the notice of demand for justice. Thereafter a notice of demand of justice was given on behalf of the petitioner on 30th June, 1989. It is sorry state of affairs that not a word in reply was sent to the petitioner even in response to the notice of demand for justice. SUch inaction and ignoring the notice gives rise to unnecessary and unwarranted litigation against the Government on the one hand and on the other it exhibits the apathy of the executive towards the bereaved family of its own employees, which is highly deplorable. In case, such notices are dutifully examined by the concerned Department, they may, on the one hand, avoid undue litigation and, on the other hand, possible in certain cases, give due relief to the needy persons who approach the Government with eyes full and shedding tears for employment. 2. What is more painful is that the staff and officers who have been enjoined with the duty to deal with such cases and applications forget that the applicants whose cases they have to deal with are none else but the children of their own one time colleagues or at least belonged to the same class of Government servants, who are unfortunately no more. 3. The Government will be well advised to open a separate cell to deal with such cases and such cell may maintain an upto-date statement regarding the vacancies available in various departments so that the applications may be scrutinised and categorised as per the qualifications and requirements of the available posts and the concerned departments may be asked to provide employment. The concerned departments may examine the modalities and may fix up a time schedule within which the application is to be decided and in no case such an application be kept pending beyond a period of four months. 4. In the instant case, when no reply whatsoever was given to the petitioner, the petitioner filed this writ petition and sought the protection of this Court in August, 1989. On 19th July, 1990 when the matter came up before this Court, a show cause notice was ordered to be issued as to why the writ petition be not admitted/disposed of. In the instant case, when no reply whatsoever was given to the petitioner, the petitioner filed this writ petition and sought the protection of this Court in August, 1989. On 19th July, 1990 when the matter came up before this Court, a show cause notice was ordered to be issued as to why the writ petition be not admitted/disposed of. Thereafter, the matter came up before the Court on 4th September, 1990 and looking to the nature of the case further time was granted for filing reply with the specific order that the matter will be finally heard on 11th October, 1990 at order stage, whether any reply has filed or not. It is a pity and I am bemoaned to find that no care has been taken to give any response. As a matter of fact, it was a case, in which looking to the facts of this case, an offer should have been made before the Court that the Department is ready to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Beldar in accordance with the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants tying While in Service Rules, 1975. The petitioner's eligibility and entitlement under the Rules of 1975 in not contested nor the same has been disputed. In this view of the Matter, I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner is fully entitled for the post of Beldar in accordance with the Rules of 1975 and he should have been given appointment. 5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and it is directed that the respondents would process the petitioner's application dated 24th April, 1989 and issue final orders on this application by which the petitioner has sought appointment on the post of Beldar in accordance with the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependants of Government servants Dying While In Service Rules, 1975, within a period of two months from the date of the copy of the Judgement is made available to the respondents.The parties are left to bear their own costs. *******