JUDGMENT 1. 1. People belonging to different segments of the society have for the past few years been talking of the decline in the value system. Judiciary has not been spared from the charge of its failure to leave to the expectation of the people of India. Whether this is true in real sense or not, one aspect of the criticism cannot be said to be without justification. This aspect pertains to the delay in decision of the disputes of the litigant public. Courts are often charged with the responsibility of delay in the disposal of cases. People's representatives, members of public services and the common man unflinchingly exercise their fundamental right of speech and expression in blaming the system of dispensation of justice for delay in the decision making. By the very nature of their placing, the Judges cannot possibly answer this charge in public and explain to the common man as to who is really responsible for the delay in the disposal of cases. However, one phenomena which has been growing day and night cannot be lost sight of. The phenomena is the abstention of the counsel from the Court, proceedings on one or other ground. A large number of working days are virtually lost because counsel for either of the parties in a particular case do not appear or all of; them abstain from working in the name of boycott, strike etc. This is an illustration case in which a person has been waiting for almost two yeas to get employment as a dependent of deceased Government servant under the provisions of the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975. In the first instance the Board of Revenue flouted the directives given by the Department of Personnel for over one year and six months. Thereafter the Writ Petition was filed on 20.4.91. The Court promptly issued notice to the Respondents and in the hope of deciding the case in an early date, fixed the case after two weeks only. On 6.8.91 neither of the parties nor the counsel appeared. The case ought to have been dismissed in default, but it was adjourned to 23.8.91. Thereafter the Writ Petition was filed on 20.4.91. The Court promptly issued notice to the Respondents and in the hope of deciding the case in an early date, fixed the case after two weeks only. On 6.8.91 neither of the parties nor the counsel appeared. The case ought to have been dismissed in default, but it was adjourned to 23.8.91. On 23.8.91 again neither of the parties nor their counsel appeared in the Court and the case had again been adjourned to 18.9.91.1 leave it to others to decide as to at whose doors the fault lies in the matter of delay in the disposal of the case. 2. Petitioner's father late Shri Basituallah Khan, who was employed as Senior Lecturer in the Technical Education, died on 16.8.89. Petitioner who possesses the qualification of B.Sc. (Maths) and M.A. in Economics made an application on 17.10.89 to the Director, Technical Education Rajasthan, Jaipur for appointment in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975. His application was forwarded to the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms on 18.10.89. The Deputy Secretary to the Government in the Department of Personnel wrote a letter dated 7.12.89 to the Registrar, Board of Revenue, Ajmer and directed that the petitioner be appointed as Naib Tehsildar. The Department of Personnel again wrote a letter dated 13.2.90 directing that the petitioner be appointed as Naib Tehsildar and the earlier directions given by the Department of Personnel be carried out. A letter was again written on 4th April, 1990 by the Department of Personnel in this respect. Notwithstanding all those communications, the petitioner has not been given appointment as Naib Tehsildar. 3. After service of notice no reply has been filed and as already noticed, the case had to be adjourned twice on 6.8.91 and on 23.8.91 on account of absence of counsel for both the parties. Learned Dy. Govt. Advocate again made a request for time to file reply, but since this matter relates to employment of a dependent of a deceased Government servant, I have declined her request. 4. Learned Dy. Govt. Advocate again made a request for time to file reply, but since this matter relates to employment of a dependent of a deceased Government servant, I have declined her request. 4. In Smt. Sushma Gosain and others v. Union of India and others (1989) 4 SCC 468 , ( AIR 1989 SC 1976 ) their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while dealing with the cases relating to appointment of dependents of deceased Government servants, made these hopeful observations: "We consider that it must be stated unequally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant". After about two years, their Lordships had to give a reminder on the same subject Anr, Smt. Phoolwati v. Union of India & others AIR 1991 SC 469 . 5. Thus, it is clear that the Supreme Court has emphasised the need for expeditious disposal of cases filed by the dependents of the deceased Government servants. Almost two years ago the petitioner had applied and none else than the Department of Personnel have directed appointment of the petitioner as Naib Tehsildar. It shocks the conscience of the Court that the directives given by the Department of Personnel are ignored by other Departments with impunity which ultimately leads to avoidable litigation in the Court of Law. 6. The petitioner has a legal right to be appointed under the Rules of 1975 and there is no reason whatsoever for withholding of his appointment on the said post. The Writ Petition, therefore, succeeds and is hereby allowed. Respondent No. 2 is directed to appoint the petitioner as Naib Tehsildar within six weeks from the date of submission of copy of this order before the Registrar, Board of Revenue. Petitioner's appointment must relate back to 1.1.90. This date has been chosen because the Department of Personnel had written to the Registrar, Board of Revenue on 7.12.89 for appointing the petitioner as Naib Tehsildar. Petitioner's appointment must relate back to 1.1.90. This date has been chosen because the Department of Personnel had written to the Registrar, Board of Revenue on 7.12.89 for appointing the petitioner as Naib Tehsildar. It is made clear that although the petitioner's appointment will relate back to 1.1.90, that he shall not be entitled to get actual pay and allowances till the date of issue of order of appointment. Costs made easy.Petition allowed. *******