Judgment P.S. Asopa, J.-By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking appropriate writ, order or direction for her compassionate appointment under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying while in Service Rules, 1975 (For short “Rules of 1975”) in place of her deceased husband Shri Ramphool who was also appointed under the said Rules of 1975 and the Work Charge Rules in place of his deceased father vide order dated 01.04.1982 as a dependent workman. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioners husband was appointed as dependent of his deceased father vide order dated 01.04.1982. The services of the petitioners husband were retrenched on 03.02.1984 in respect of which conciliation proceedings were filed by the late husband of the petitioner which resulted in failure. Ultimately, a reference was made by the State Government to the effect that whether Ramphools services have been legally or validly terminated from 07.02.1984 ? if not then for what relief and amount, workman is entitled? During the pendency of the said reference application, the workman died on 23.07.1993 and his legal representatives, the present petitioner was substituted alongwith her minor sons. The said reference was answered affirmative on the ground that before retrenchment, the workman Ramphool (deceased) was not paid the compensation and notice pay, which is violative of mandatory provisions of Section 25-F. The Labour Court ultimately passed an award on 07.09.1995 to the effect that since Ramphool died, therefore, no reinstatement order can be passed, but the deceased Ramphools wife Smt. Barfi (petitioner) is entitled for salary from 07.02.1984 to 22.07.1993 with all other and consequential benefits. 3. In Para 9 of the writ petition, it is submitted that she has submitted a representation for employment under the Rules of 1975. However, there is a mention of notice for demand of justice dated 16.08.1986 which proved of no avail. 4. The respondents in reply to the writ petition has submitted that petitioners husband was appointed as Beldar on 20.05.1983 under the Rules of 1975 for three months and the said appointment was not regular. The grounds have been denied. 5. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder and again stressed for notice for demand of justice and her entitlement for appointment. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition and considered the rival submissions of the parties. 7. The grounds have been denied. 5. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder and again stressed for notice for demand of justice and her entitlement for appointment. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition and considered the rival submissions of the parties. 7. The Labour Court vide award dated 07.09.1995 has held the retrenchment of the late husband of the petitioner illegal and further considered this aspect of the matter that no reinstatement order can be passed, but the arrears of salary has been granted to the petitioner with all other and consequential benefits. The relevant Para 11 is reproduced hereunder:- y dh e`R;q gks pqdh gS blfy;s mls iqu% lsX; ugha gSA Þ11- jkeQwok essa fy;s tkus vknsk fn;s tkus ;ksizkfFkZ;k & cQhZ dk kiFki= gS fd mlds ifr us ukSdjh ls gVus ds ckn vU; LFkku ij dksbZ dke ugha fd;k vkSj bldk [kUMu Hkh foi{kh dh lk{; ls ugha gksrk gSaA blls ;g lkfcr gksrk gS fd e`rd jkeQwok lekfIr fnukad 07-02-1984 ls 23-07-1993 rd fdlh ykHkizn fu;ksa ugha jgkA cQhZ y lstu esdk izfrijh{k.k esa dFku gS fd mlds ifr ds gVus ds ckn esgur etnwjh djs 15&20 :i;s dekrs Fks ftls xqtkjk pyrk FkkA blds bl dFku ls ;g fofnr ugha gksrk fd mldk ifr gh dek dj ykrk Fkk ftlls xqtu ugha dgk tk tkjk pyrk Fkk vkSj dHkh dHkh etnwjh dekuss dks Hkh ykHkizn fu;ksldrkA vr% izkfFkZ;k cQhZ foi{kh ls 07-02-1984 ls 22-07-1993 rd dk iwjk fiNyk osru lHkh ykHk ifjykHk lfgr izkIr djus dh vf /kdkjh.kh gSA vr% fuEu vokMZ ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA foi{kh foHkkx }kjk e`rd jkeQwy dh lsok lekfIr voS/k o vuqfpr gS A jkeQwy dh e`R;q gks tkus ls iqu% lsok ds fy;s tkus dk vknsk ugha fn;k tk ldrk ijUrq e`rd jkeQwy dh iRuh Jhefr cQhZ foi{kh foHkkx ls 07-02-1984 ls 22-07-1993 rd fiNyk iwjk osru vU; lHkh ykHk ifjykHk lfgr izkIr djus dh vf /kdkj.kh gksxhA vokMZ izdkkukFkZ jkT; ljdkj dks izsf "kr gksAß (emphasis supplied) 8. The question before this Court is not whether the compassionate appointment of the late husband of the petitioner as Labourer is for fixed term or regular one? But the same is whether he was appointed under the Rules of 1975 which have been made applicable mutatis mutandis on work charge employees vide Government order dated 22.02.1997? The question before this Court is not whether the compassionate appointment of the late husband of the petitioner as Labourer is for fixed term or regular one? But the same is whether he was appointed under the Rules of 1975 which have been made applicable mutatis mutandis on work charge employees vide Government order dated 22.02.1997? The answer of said question is in Annexure-1 order of appointment of late husband of petitioner-Ramphool dated 03.02.1984 wherein the word “dependent of deceased workman” is mentioned and award dated 07.09.1995 (Annexure-4) whereby all other and consequential benefits gratned to petitioner, therefore, the appointment of late husband of the petitioner would be treated as work charge dependent employee and on his death also, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for employment under the same rules. But there in the instant case, no such consideration has been made and this inaction on the part of the respondents after receipt of notice for demand of justice is highly unreasonable, arbitrary and contrary to the Rules of 1975 and aforesaid notification. The Rules of 1975 repealed vide notification dated 312.1996 and by that time, it appears that no application in the prescribed proforma has been given. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a Judgment in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1053/1997 Smt. Prem Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., dated 25.07.1997 wherein in identical circumstances, this Court issued the direction for consideration for appointment in the same year when the writ petition was filed. 10. Delay in approaching the respondent/ Court is fatal. But, here in the instant case the facts are otherwise. First the respondents did not respond and thereafter, writ petition remain pending for more than seven years, therefore, in my opinion, delay will not come in the way of granting the relief to the petitioner. .11. In view of above, the present writ petition is allowed with the following directions to the respondents:- 1. In case the petitioner submits a representation with requisite particulars within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order then the same shall be entertained. 2. .11. In view of above, the present writ petition is allowed with the following directions to the respondents:- 1. In case the petitioner submits a representation with requisite particulars within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order then the same shall be entertained. 2. On receipt of the said representation as directed above, same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with the Rules of 1996 and if she is entitled to get appointement, necessary order shall be passed within 60 days from the date of receipt of presentation. Cost is made easy.