JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed seeking an employment on compassionate ground. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case reveal that petitioner's father late (Shri) Govind Singh, who was a Teacher in Panchayat Samiti, Ahore, Zila Parishad, Jalore, died in harness on 24-9-1973. At the lime of death of petitioner's father, he was four years of age as he was born on 9-8-1969. In 1992, after attaining majority, petitioner applied for employment on compassionate ground under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependants of Members of Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Service Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred as "the Rules, 1978"). However the case of the petitioner remained under consideration and various Authorities issued directions to consider his case for compassionate employment strictly in accordance with the 1978 Rules. During the pendency of his application, the Rules, 1978 stood repelled and the new Rules, namely, the State Government Employees on Compassionate Ground Employment Rules, 1996 came into existence. The petitioner has not been provided employment on compassionate ground, hence this petition. 2. Heard Mr. M.C. Bhoot, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Mr. Bhoot has submitted that as the application of the petitioner had been filed under the Rules of 1978, which did not bar consideration of the application even at a belated stage, the case of the petitioner is worth considering even now. However, the respondents had taken a specific plea in their reply that the petitioner applied for the first time in 1992 after 19 years of the death of his father, Moreover, the respondents are not willing to consider the case of the petitioner as the petitioner's mother had made an application dated 22-12-1976 (Annexure. R:1) praying for regularisation as Class IV Employee in the school under the same Panchayat Samiti where she was working as an ad hoc employee, wherein petitioner's mother Smt. Jeewan Kanwar had submitted that her case be considered for regularisation being a widow of the deceased employee as it was not possible for her to up-bring the three children. Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that as the petitioner's mother had been given the benefit of regularisation considering the factum of death of petitioner's father, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed. 4. Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that as the petitioner's mother had been given the benefit of regularisation considering the factum of death of petitioner's father, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed. 4. The issue of compassionate employment had been considered by the Apex Court from time to time. In Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 1976 : (1989 Lab IC 2014) , the Apex Court had observed that the purpose of giving employment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship of the family due to the death of the bread-earner. It is provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. If it is not given immediately, the very purpose for which the employment is provided for, would stand frustrated. 5. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Maryana, 1994 (4) SCC 138 : (1994 AIR SCW 2305) , the Apex Court observed as under at page 2307 (of AIR SCW):- "As a rule, appointments in public services should be made strictly on the basis of open in-vitiation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment is permissible. Neither the Government nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualification laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interest of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration, taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both the ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood." It further observed as under:- "For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over." The issue was further considered by the Supreme Court in, Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1996 (1) SCC 301 , wherein it was observed as under:- "The very object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employees who die in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. Since the death occurred way back in 1971, in which year the appellant was four years old, it cannot be said that he is entitled to be appointed after he attained majority long thereafter. In other words, if that contention is accepted. It amounts to another mode of recruitment of the dependent of a deceased Government servant which cannot be encouraged, de hors the recruitment rules." 6. After considering all these judgments, the Supreme Court again in, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar, 1996 (2) JT 542 , has held that under the Dying in Harness Rules, the dependent of the deceased cannot claim the employment as a vested right and such employment cannot be given after expiry of the long period, i.e., after the lapse of a reasonable period. 7. 7. A Division Bench of this Court has, also, Considered this aspect of the case in Narendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 (1) RLW 666 , wherein after considering a large number of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court came to the conclusion that employment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right for the reason that employment on compassionate ground is not a vested right and such an employment can, also, be refused in case the financial condition of the family is satisfactory. 8. In Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh, 1997 (8) JT 332 : ( AIR 1997 SC 3887 ) , the Hon'ble Apex Court placed reliance upon the judgments referred to above and observed that "the object of providing for compassionate employment is only to relieve the family from financial hardship, therefore, an emeliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment." The same view has been reiterated in Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar , (supra); State of Bihar v. Samsuz Zoha, AIR 1996 SC 1961 : (1996 Lab IC (1722) , Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation v. Dinesh Kumar, 1996 (4) SCC 560 : ( AIR 1996 SC 2226 ) and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. A. Radhika Thirumalai, 1996 (6) SCC 394 : ( AIR 1997 SC 123 ) . It has categorically been held that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of course not being a vested right. 9. The concept of vested right has been explained by the Apex Court in, Bibi Sayeeda v. State of Bihar, AIR 1996 SC 1936 : (1996 AIR SCW 2283) wherein it has been described as under at page 1941 (of AIR):- "The word 'vested' is defined in Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edition) at page 1563, as "vested," Fixed, accrued; settled; absolute; complete. Having the character or given in the rights of absolute ownership no contingent not subject to be defeated by a condition precedent." Rights are "vested" when right to enjoyment, present or prospective, has become property of some particular person or persons as present interest; mere expectancy of future benefits, or contingent interest in property founded on anticipated continuance of existing laws, does not constitute vested rights. In Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary, (International Edition) at page 1397, "vested" is defined as Law held by a tenure subject to no contingency; complete; established by law as a permanent right; vested interests;" 10. Thus, in view of the above, as the mother of the petitioner had been regularised in the employment considering the factum of death of petitioner's father in harness, the petitioner cannot claim the employment on compassionate ground after 25 years of the death of his father the deceased employee. 11. In view of the above, I find no force in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******