JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have challenged the orders dated 30.11.1985 and 3.8.1988 and have prayed that father of petitioners No. 2 to 5 be declared to have continued in service till his death on 2.1.1986 and any one of petitioners No. 2 to 5 may be directed to be appointed as L.D.C./Patwari in accordance with the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying while in Service Rules, 1975. The father of petitioners No. 2 to 5 late Shri Phool Chand Jain was retired under Rule 244 (2) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. Unfortunately, he died on 2.1.1986. 2. The persons who were similarly retired under Rule 244 (2) of 1951 Rules filed appeals before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal. By a common judgment dated 27.3.87, the Tribunal accepted 15 appeals and quashed tile orders of retirement of those appellants on the ground of defect in the constitution of the Screening Committee. Such persons were reinstated in service by order of the competent authority. 3. An application dated 26.2.1986 was moved by the petitioner No. 2 Vimal Chand to the Chief Minister of Rajasthan for giving him employment on the post of Patwari in lieu of his father's service. Similar request was made to the Revenue Secretary on 1.3.88. This request was turned down by the Govt. vide Annexure- 8 on the ground that the father of petitioners No. 2 to 5 was had died on 2.1.1986 and at that time he was not in employment and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of 1975 Rules. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Government has itself issued instructions that decision of a court tribunal should be applied equally to all cases. That may be so and the petitioners may claim that they should be accorded the benefit of that judgment, but in my view that is a matter which is to be decided by the Government. Merely because in the year 1986, some others had filed appeals before the Tribunal and were successful, there is no justification for entertaining this writ petition, which has been filed after a period of more than 3 years of the order dated 30.11.1985. 5. As far as Annexure- 8 is concerned, in my opinion no exception can be taken for rejecting the prayer of petitioner No.2. 5. As far as Annexure- 8 is concerned, in my opinion no exception can be taken for rejecting the prayer of petitioner No.2. Admittedly, Phool Chand was not in service when he died. It cannot, therefore, be said that the he is a dependent of the Government servant who had died while in service.I find no substance in this writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.No order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******