JUDGMENT 1. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition. 2. Petitioner's father Shri Ummed Dan Singh was employed as Constable in the Police Department of the Government of Rajasthan. He died during the course of service on 6.10.1974. At that time, the petitioner was minor being about 6 years of age. The Petitioner made an application in the year 1988 for appointment on the post of Constable or on any other equivalent post under the provisions of the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Deceased Govt. Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975. Petitioner was however, found medically unfit to be appointed as Constable. The Superintendent of Police, G.R.P. forwarded his application for appointment as L.D.C. The Deputy Inspector General of Police in turn forwarded the application to the Dy. Secretary, Home Department. The Inspector General of Police wrote a letter for appointment of the petitioner according to the JRules, but since no post of L.D.C. was available in the office of the Superintendent of Police, G.R.P. the petitioner's case was referred to the Dy. Inspector General of Police for giving suitable appointment to the petitioner. On 5.12.1990, the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Ajmer Range, Ajmer wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Nagaur to give appointment to the petitioner as L.D.C. Ultimately, the petitioner was informed by letter dated 20th March, 1991 that he cannot be given appointment as L.D.C. in view of the Government Circular dated 1.4.1989 and if he is willing to be appointed as Class IV employee, his consent may be obtained and forwarded. He made a representation on 16.7.91 and pointed out that the anamoly which had crept in the circular dated 1.4.89 has been rectified by the another circular of the Government dated 8.7.91 and the petitioner may be appointed as L.D.C. Petitioner has stated that although a period of more than 3 years has passed since making of application, yet he has not been appointed on a suitable post. 3. 3. The documents, which have been placed on record and particularly the Circular dated 8.7.91, which the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred in support of his submission, makes it clear that the dependent of a deceased Government servant is entitled to be appointed on a suitable post, which includes the post of L.D.C. The anamoly in the circular dated 1.4.89 has been rectified by the subsequent circular and, therefore, there will be no justification for not giving appointment to the petitioner on the post of L.D.C. There has been inordinate delay in disposal of the application in accordance with the Rules. Mere exchange of letters between the departmental authorities is not a satisfactory compliance of the requirement of expeditious disposal of the applications filed by the dependents of deceased Government servants for appointment in accordance with 1975 Rules. 4. The writ petition is therefore, disposed of with the direction to the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of L.D.C. in accordance with the provisions of 1975 Rules within a period of 2 months from the date of submission of copy of this order to the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Ajmer Range, Ajmer and the Superintendent of Police, G.R.P., Ajmer. In case no vacancy of L.D.C. is available, the case of the petitioner shall be referred forthwith to the Department of Personnel and in that case, the Department of Personnel will give appointment to the petitioner. It need hardly be emphasised that the very object of giving employment to the dependent of deceased Government servant is to mitigate the hardship, which is caused due to the death of bread earner of the family. If such applications are dealt with in routine course, the very purpose with which the Rules of 1975 have been enacted will be frustrated. It is only proper for the departmental authorities that they should take notice of the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sushma Goswami v. Union of India (AIR 1989 SC 1679) and Phoolwati v. Union of India ( AIR 1991 SC 469 ) . It would be profitable to quote the observation of the Supreme Court in the later case : "It can be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on - compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. It would be profitable to quote the observation of the Supreme Court in the later case : "It can be stated unequivocally 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." 5. First of all, I proceed to consider preliminary objection. A bare perusal of the application dated 15.1.90 shows that it has not been mentioned in the application that under which section it has been moved and only 'Sthagan' has been mentioned at the top of application (whether it is under Order 39 Rule 1 or under section 151 C.P.C.), but in para 5 of the application all the conditions enumerated under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 exist. Thus, the preliminary objection is not sustainable. That apart this Court has power to convert this appeal into revision and the same is treated as revision petition.Writ Petition Allowed. *******