Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of termination dated 23rd April, 1997 (Annexure-10) whereby the compassionate appointment, which has been offered to her on account of death of her father Shri Kanhaiya Lal on the premise that she was married prior to her fathers death and could not be considered to be dependent on the date of submission of application,. 2. The petitioners father Shri Kanhaiya Lal was serving in the State Government as Gardener and while in service, he died on 21st February, 1996. After his death, the petitioner No. 1 Smt. Kajodi Devi, who is widow of deceased Government employee, forwarded application of her daughter petitioner No. 2 Smt. Sampat Devi for her appointment under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975 (“Rules of 1975”). Her application was duly forwarded and she was considered for appointment vide order dated 3rd January, 1997 (Annexure-6). In pursuant to which, she joined and after serving for four months, her services were terminated vide order dated 23rd April, 1997 (Annexure-10) on the premise that she was married on the date of her submission of application and could not be considered to be dependent in terms of Rules of 1975. 3. Shri Arvind Juneja, Counsel for petitioner urged that she being only daughter and dependent upon the deceased Government employee despite she being married was entitled to be considered for appointment and no error was committed while appointment was offered to her vide order dated 3rd January, 1997 (Anneuxure-6) and without following the procedure and due compliance of principles of natural justice, her services have been terminated by the respondents vide order dated 23rd April, 1997 (Anneuxre-10). 4. 4. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and it has been submitted that this fact was not disclosed by the petitioner No. 2 at the time of submission of her application that she is married, fact was not disclosed while appointment which was offered to her being dependent of deceased Government employee vide order dated 3rd January, 1997 (Annexure-6) and immediately after this fact came to notice that she was not a dependent under the Rules, her services were rightly terminated vide order dated 23rd April, 1997 (Annexure-10) and since the order of appointment itself was per se bad and contrary to the scheme of Rules, no opportunity of hearing in the facts and circumstances of the case was required to be afforded to her. It has also been submitted that initially the appointment was offered for six months under the bona fide belief that by the expiry of term the administrative and financial sanction will be accorded by the respondents, but that was also not granted, as a consequence thereof , her services were terminated. 5. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. This fact remained undisputed that petitioner No. 2 Smt. Sampat Devi was already married on the date of submission of her application for seeking employment under the Rules of 1975 and as per Rule 2 (f) wife or husband, sons, unmarried or widow daughters etc. are the dependent on the deceased Government servant at the time of his/her death can be considered to be member of family for the purpose of invoking Rules of 1975. The relevant Rule 2(f) is reproduced as under: (f) “Family” means the family of the deceased Government servant and shall include wife or husband, sons and unmarried or widow daughters and son/daughter adopted according to the provisions of law by the deceased Government servant who were dependent on the deceased Government servant. Provided that if no such member of the family be eligible for getting benefit under these Rules, the benefit available under these Rules may be extended to any other close relative of the deceased to be named by the widow or the Guardian of the children of the deceased with the specific approval of the Department of Personnel. 7. Provided that if no such member of the family be eligible for getting benefit under these Rules, the benefit available under these Rules may be extended to any other close relative of the deceased to be named by the widow or the Guardian of the children of the deceased with the specific approval of the Department of Personnel. 7. Counsel for petitioner has not been able to satisfy that in view of Rule 2(f) of the Rules of 1975 how the petitioner can be considered to be member of family of deceased Government servant for the purpose of seeking employment under the Rules of 1975. In view of legal and factual matrix, which has come forward, the very forwarding of her application by the concerned authorities was erroneous and appointment in such circumstances cannot be considered to be as per scheme of Rules. 8. The Submission, which has been made by the Counsel for petitioner, that before taking decision for termination, no opportunity was afforded to her. It is true that appointment once made effective and if any decision has to be taken if at all caused prejudice to the concerned incumbent, opportunity of hearing was required to be afforded, but in the present facts and circumstances when this fact remained undisputed that she was not at all member of family who could be considered to be eligible to seek employment under the Rules of 1975. In my opinion, affording any opportunity of hearing would not be going to serve any purpose and remained empty formality. 9. Counsel for petitioner further submits that the petitioner has worked for atleast four months from 3rd January, 1997 to 23rd April, 1997, which is not disputed by the respondents. 10. Consequently, I find no force in the writ petition, the same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to make payment towards salary for the period during which she worked in their office. The said payment towards salary be made within a period of three months.