JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner Prakash Chand Jain's father Shri Kirori Lal Jain was a Government servant. He died while he was still in Government service. The petitioner made an application to Divisional Forest Officer, Bharatpur for appointment as a dependent of the deceased Government servant in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While In Service Rules, 1975 (for short 'the 1975 Rules'). This application was submitted by him on 4.8.1990 in the prescribed form. He claimed that he may be appointed as Lower Division Clerk because he possessed the qualifications of Higher Secondary pass. Another application dated 27.8.1990 was submitted by him for that purpose. He then served a notice of demand for justice dated 26.9.1990. Even after the service of notice of demand of justice the petitioner did not get any relief and therefore he filed writ petition in the High Court with a prayer that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents directing them to appoint him as Lower Division Clerk or any other suitable post. 2. In reply to the show-cause notice the respondents have admitted the fact that petitioner's father was in Government service at the time of his death. It has also been admitted that application for appointment in accordance with the 1975 Rules has been submitted by the petitioner. It has further been stated that the petitioner had not disclosed the fact that his brother Shri Amir Chand Jain was already employed in the Rajasthan State Electricity Board. Thus when one member of the family of the petitioner is in gainful employment and the family is getting pension, there is no justification in the claim of the petitioner that he should be appointed as a dependent of the deceased Government servant. Therefore, if one member is already in service, the 1975 Rules cannot be invoked. The respondents have placed on record letter Annexure R1 dated 4.5.1991 written by the Executive Engineer (Civil), Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Alwar to the Divisional Forest Officer, Government of Rajasthan, Bharatpur wherein it is indicated that Shri Amir Chand Jain s/o Shri Kirori Lal Jain was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the service of Rajasthan State Electricity Board on 8.1.1974 on the basis of his having passed the competitive examination held by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board. On the basis of these facts the respondents have asserted that the writ petition should be dismissed. 3. A rejoinder was filed by the petitioner in which he has stated that he has not concealed any material fact. His brother is in the service of Rajasthan State Electricity Board on the basis of appointment made in pursuance of open market competition. No other member of the family of Shri Kirori Lal Jain has been given appointment as his dependent. He has also referred to a letter dated 28.1.1991 written by the Divisional Forest Officer to the petitioner where by the former had called upon the petitioner to furnish the details of the members of the family of late Shri Kirori Lal Jain, the annual income of the family of late Shri Kirori Lal Jain and as to why Amir Chand Jain is not interested in service, as to whether he is already in Government service. The petitioner submitted his reply on 3.2.1991 and gave out all details. The petitioner has also placed copy of Government circular dated 1.4.1989 in support of his claim that he is entitled to be appointed under the 1975 Rules. He has asserted that employment to a dependent of deceased Government servant cannot be denied only on the ground that one of the members of the family of the deceased Government servant is already in employment. 4. The only question of law which needs determination is as to whether employment to one dependent of the deceased Government servant can be denied on a ground that one or more members of the family is/are in employment under the Government or in other statutory body or Corporation?Rules 5 of the 1975 Rules reads as under: "RECRUITMENT OF A MEMBER OF THE FAMILY OF THE DECEASED:- In case of "deceased Government servants" one member of his family who is not already employed under the Central/State Government or Statutory Board/Organisations/Corporations owned or controlled by the Central/State Government shall, on making an application for the purpose, be given a suitable employment in Government service without delay only against an existing vacancy, which is not within the purview of the State Public Service Commission, in relation of the normal recruitment rules, provided such member fulfils the educational qualifications prescribed for the post and is also otherwise qualified for Government service. In the event of nonavailability of a vacancy or any of the members of the family being unqualified or minor is not found suitable or eligible for immediate employment, then such cases should be considered immediately on the availability of the post or any one of them becomes qualified or eligible for such employment under these Rules: Provided that recruitment may be made on posts which are within the purview of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, except the major State services mentioned in Rule 3 where the Appointing Authority is satisfied in consultation with the Department of Personnel and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission that a dependent of a deceased Government servant is qualified and suitable for appointment to such post." 5. A perusal of Rule 5 shows that one member of the family of deceased Government servant, who is not already employed under the Central/State Government or Statutory Board/Organisations/Corporations owned or controlled by the Central/State Government is entitled to be given suitable employment in Government service without delay against the existing vacancy which is not within the purview of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. For this purpose normal requirement of the recruitment as provided in the relevant service rules is automatically relaxed. The only condition is that such dependent must fulfil the educational qualifications prescribed for the post and that he is otherwise qualified for Government service. The rule further prescribed that if the post is not available at the time of making of application or if member of the family of deceased Government servant is not qualified or is minor, then such cases are required to be considered immediately on the availability of posts or as soon as the dependent becomes qualified or eligible for employment under the 1975 Rules. Even in respect of the posts which are within the purview of Rajasthan Public Service Commission the appointing authority is entitled to give appointment to a dependent of a deceased Government servant if it is satisfied that he is suitable for such employment after consultation with the Department of Personnel and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The only restriction on appointments under the 1975 Rules is in relation to the major State Services, namely, the Rajasthan Administrative Service, Rajasthan Police Service, Rajasthan Forest Service, Rajasthan Judicial Service and Rajasthan Accounts Service. This restriction is specified under Rule 3 of the 1975 Rules. The only restriction on appointments under the 1975 Rules is in relation to the major State Services, namely, the Rajasthan Administrative Service, Rajasthan Police Service, Rajasthan Forest Service, Rajasthan Judicial Service and Rajasthan Accounts Service. This restriction is specified under Rule 3 of the 1975 Rules. Thus, it is clear that in all services under the Government of Rajasthan, except the five major State services specified in Rule 3, employment to one member of the family of the deceased Government servant, who comes within the definition of 'dependent of the deceased Government servant' is to be given. Rules nowhere provides that if one member is already in employment under the Central/State Government or Statutory Board/Corporation, one member of the family is not to be given appointment under the 1975 Rules. It is not possible to read such an implied restriction in Rule 5 or any other Rule of the 1975 Rules. 1975 Rules have been enacted with the object of giving employment to one member of the family of the deceased Government servant who dies while in Government service so that the family of the deceased Government servant is not left in harness. The policy underlying these Rules is that employment is to be given to one of the dependents of the deceased Government servant by way of compassion. The intention of the Rules Making Authority is that the family of a deceased Government servant is not to be rendered without the source of living and may not be thrown on roads by sudden demise of bread earner of the family. It is, therefore, clearly a place of welfare legislation intended to benefit a class of persons namely the dependents of the deceased Government servants. It may be that in some cases additional advantage is given to the members of the family of the deceased Government servant but that cannot be a ground for not giving full effect to the plain language of Rule 5 of the 1975 Rules. If the rule making authority has itself not chosen to restrict the scope of the Rule to cases where anyone member of the family is not already under employment there is no justification for this court to read such implied restriction in the Rule in the process of interpretation of Rules. If the rule making authority has itself not chosen to restrict the scope of the Rule to cases where anyone member of the family is not already under employment there is no justification for this court to read such implied restriction in the Rule in the process of interpretation of Rules. In my considered opinion full effect is to be given to the language employed in Rule 5 so as to advance an object with which the 1975 Rules have been enacted. 6. Even the State Government has realised this position after some judgments of Court and has issued Circular, dated 1.4.1989 whereby it has modified his previous circulars dated 4th November, 1985/29th September, 1987. In the circular dated 4.11.1985, it was provided that benefit of 1975 Rules is not to be given to a dependent of deceased Government servant in case any other member of the family is already in employment. It has now been realised that in the absence of the provision in the Rules such restriction could not have been imposed by an administrative order. Therefore, by the subsequent circular dated 1.4.1989 the Government has directed that employment under the 1975 Rules can be denied only if one member of the family of deceased Government servant is already given employment as a dependent of deceased Government servant. 7. The facts of this case show that no member of the family of late Shri Kirori Lal Jain has been given employment under the Rules of 1975. Amir Chand Jain has been given employment because he has been selected by open competition held by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board. His appointment cannot be any strech of imagination be described as an employment given to him as a dependent of the deceased employee. It is not out of place to mention that Rajasthan State Electricity Board has also framed scheme for giving employment to the dependent of its own employees who died during the course of service. Admittedly, late Shri Kirori Lal Jain was not in the service of Rajasthan State Electricity Board. Therefore, question of Amir Chand Jain getting benefit as a dependent of Kirori Lal Jain for the purpose of his employment in Rajasthan State Electricity Board simply does not arise. Admittedly, late Shri Kirori Lal Jain was not in the service of Rajasthan State Electricity Board. Therefore, question of Amir Chand Jain getting benefit as a dependent of Kirori Lal Jain for the purpose of his employment in Rajasthan State Electricity Board simply does not arise. It has, therefore, to be concluded that the respondents have denied appointment to the petitioner in accordance of the 1975 Rules for reasons which are wholly extraneous and irrelevant to the context of the scheme underlying 1975 Rules. By denying a benefit of 1975 Rules to the petitioner the respondents have subjected the petitioner to discrimination. He has been treated unequally and unfairly with reference to the 1.975 Rules. 8. This writ petition succeeds and it is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to give appointment to the petitioner, as Lower Division Clerk in case it is found that he fulfils the requisite qualifications and other conditions of eligibility. His eligibility should be considered as on the date of his application and not as on the date of passing of the order. If he is not found entitled to be appointed as Lower Division Clerk the respondents should consider his case for giving appointment on other suitable post having regard to his qualifications. This exercise must be undertaken and completed within a period of 3 months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.Petition allowed. *******