JUDGMENT : R.K. Patra. J. 1. Being disheartened at the rejection of their prayer to give employment to their son-in-law under the rehabilitation scheme as communicated in the letter dated 29-11-1994 (Annexure-2), the petitioners have filed this writ petition praying for quashing it. They have also prayed for a direction to consider the claim for employment of their son-in-law. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioners is that both of them are now past 60 years of age and have no source of income for their livelihood. They were fully dependant upon their son called Harekrushna Das who unfortunately while working as Senior Assistant under the Orissa Bridge and Construction Corporation Limited, died of blood cancer on 12-7-1994. In their old age, they look at their son-in-law Narahari as a source of solace but he is not in a position to render any help to them because of the fact that he is unemployed. According to the petitioners, Narahari has passed M. Com. and being qualified is eligible for being employed in a clerical post but his prayer to provide a suitable employment to him under the rehabilitation scheme was rejected by the opp. parties without taking the relevant facts and circumstances into consideration. 3. Opp. party No. 1 is the Orissa Bridge and Construction Corporation Limited represented though its Managing Director-cum-Chairman. Opp. party No. 2 is the Senior Manager (Admn.) of the said Corporation. They have filed counter affidavit wherein it has been averred that Narahari Das who happens to be the brother-in-law of the deceased does not come within the definition of "family members" as defined in Rule 2 (b) of the Orissa Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 and, as such, no relief can be granted to the petitioners who espouse the cause of their son-in-law Narahari Das. In course of hearing, Shri Pangari learned counsel appearing for the opp. parties relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Mrs. Asha Ramachandra Ambekar and another, come within the purview of the rehabilitation scheme this Court In exercise of writ Jurisdiction cannot direct to give employment on compassionate grounds contrary to the statutory provisions. 4. parties relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Mrs. Asha Ramachandra Ambekar and another, come within the purview of the rehabilitation scheme this Court In exercise of writ Jurisdiction cannot direct to give employment on compassionate grounds contrary to the statutory provisions. 4. As it appears, to regulate recruitment to the State Civil Services and Posts as a measure of rehabilitation assistance the Governor of Orissa In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution has framed a set of rules called the Orissa Civil Services (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rehabilitation Rules'). Rule 11 (iv) provides, inter alia, that the facilities under the Rehabilitation Rules shall mutatis mutandis be applicable to the family of the employees of the public sector undertakings under the State Government. There is, no dispute that the Rehabilitation Assistance Rules govern the field of recruitment to the services under the Orissa Bridge and Construction Corporation Limited, it being a public sector undertaking under the State Government. 5. In the premises stated above, the short question that arises for our consideration is whether the petitioners and/or their son-in-law can avail of the facilities available under the Rehabilitation Assistance Rules. In order to get the hang of the case, it is necessary to examine different provisions of the Rules. Persual of Rule 4 Indicates that rehabilitation assistance is conceived as a compassionate measure of saving a family of a government servant from immediate distress when he suddenly dies or is permanently incapacitated. Such assistance is extended with a view to ameliorate the government servant or his family from the brink of starvation. In other words, the rehabilitation scheme has direct nexus with the economic condition of the concerned government servant and his family. Since the Rehabilitation Rules have been made as a social and beneficient measure, they are to be interpreted in such manner to give them a purposeful meaning with the object, of doing social justice. In other words, the rehabilitation scheme has direct nexus with the economic condition of the concerned government servant and his family. Since the Rehabilitation Rules have been made as a social and beneficient measure, they are to be interpreted in such manner to give them a purposeful meaning with the object, of doing social justice. Rule 5 provides that in deserving cases a member of the family of a government servant who is permanently incapacitated or who dies while in service may be appointed to any Class-III or Class-IV post by the appointing authority of that government servant provided he/she possesses the requisite minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post without following the procedure prescribed for recruitment to the post either by statutory rules or otherwise. In Rule 2 (a) the expression 'deserving case has been defined to mean : (i) that the death or incapacitation of the employee has adversely affected his family financially because the family has no alternative mode of livelihood; or (ii) that there is existence of indigent conditions in the family after death or invalid retirement of the employee; (iii) and (iv) xx xx xx Rule 2 (b) defines the expression "family members" to mean and include : (i) Wife/Husband (ii) Sons or step sons or sons legally adopted through a registered deed, (iii) Unmarried daughters and unmarried step daughters, (iv) Widowed daughters if they reside with the affected family, and (v) Unmarried or widowed sister permanently residing with the affected family. From the conjint reading of the aforesaid Rules 2 (a), 2(b) and 5, it would follow that in deserving case, a member of the family of the concerned government servant may be appointed to any Class-III or Class-IV post. In this case, the concerned employee was the deceased Harekrushna and appointment is being sought for his brother-in-law Narahari. A brother-in-law- does not come within the meaning of the definition "family members" but while considering the issue, the expression 'deserving case' in Rule 2 (a) cannot be lost sight of. As per the definition, a deserving case is one where the death or incapacitation of the employee has adversely affected his family financially because the family has no alternative mode of livelihood or there is existence of indigent conditions in the family after death or invalid retirement of the employee. As per the definition, a deserving case is one where the death or incapacitation of the employee has adversely affected his family financially because the family has no alternative mode of livelihood or there is existence of indigent conditions in the family after death or invalid retirement of the employee. The case of the petitioners is that the death of their son has adversely affected the family financially because the family has no alternative mode of livelihood and consequently, there is existence of indigent conditions in the family. If we go strictly by the definition of family member as per Rule 2 (b), a son-in-law though does not come within the fold of family members" nonetheless the death of Harekrushna has made out a deserving case so far as the petitioners are concerned. It is not disputed before us that death of Harekrushna has adversely affected the petitioners financially indicating existence of indigent condition in the family. Therefore, in order to give full meaning to the expression "deserving case", the claim for appointment of the petitioners" son-in-law cannot be lightly brushed aside on a technical plea that the definition of "family members" does not include son-in-law. To meet perhaps such contingency and situation. Rule 16 (1) authorises the appropriate authority to relax the Rules to such extent as it may consider necessary for dealing with a case in a Just and equitable manner, The opp. parties have not applied their mind to Rule 16 (1) of the Rehabilitation Rules and mechanically rejected the prayer of the petitioners to extend necessary benefits. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, we quash the decision communicated in the letter dated 29-11-1994 (Annexure-2) and direct the opp. parties to take appropriate decision in the matter keeping in view the observations made in this order within two months from the date of communication of the writ. 7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs, D.P. Mohapatra, A.C.J. I agree. Final Result : Allowed