Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. The father of the petitioner was working as a Lineman with respondent No. 1 and died in harness on September 13, 1999. The petitioner applied for ex-gratia appointment on May 7, 2002, through proper channel by moving an appropriate application (P-1). Respondent No. 1 found some lacunas in the application of the petitioner and required him to furnish the affidavit to the effect that after getting the job under ex-gratia scheme, the petitioner was to take full responsibility of the family of the deceased. However, on 17.9.2003 (P-3), respondent No. l has rejected the case of the petitioner for ex-gratia appointment on the ground that he was over age. as per Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003 (for brevity, the 2003 Rules). According to the 2003 Rules, the maximum age limit prescribed for ex-gratia appointment is 25 years, whereas the petitioner has been found to be over 30 years 1 month and 18 days on the date of death of his father. 2. On 29.5.2004, notice of motion was issued and the learned Counsel for the respondents while accepting notice along with the copies of the paper book had requested for some time to file written statement. The same request was repeated on 24.9.2004, 7.12.2004, 29.3.2005 and 7.11.2005. However, learned Counsel for the respondents today has stated that the matter can be argued without filing of any written statement. Accordingly, the matter is taken up for hearing with the consent of the parties. 3. Mr. D.P. Sharda, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that according to Rule 8 of the 2003 Rules, the criteria of eligibility has been provided and according to Sub-rule (e) of Rule 8, a married son of the deceased has been made eligible if no other member of the family is eligible for Government service, provided his or her spouse is not already in Government service and unmarried eligible dependent is not willing to join by giving an affidavit to that effect. He has maintained that an exception has been created by the aforementioned Rules and a married son irrespective of the age has been made eligible. He has further urged that the impugned order dated 17.9.2003 (P-3) rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he is over age is liable to be quashed. 4. Mr. He has maintained that an exception has been created by the aforementioned Rules and a married son irrespective of the age has been made eligible. He has further urged that the impugned order dated 17.9.2003 (P-3) rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he is over age is liable to be quashed. 4. Mr. Alok Jain, learned Counsel for the respondents has argued that a perusal of the application filed by the petitioner would show that he is married and he-was required to furnish an affidavit in terms of Rule 8(e) of the 2003 Rules, which has not been done. According to the learned Counsel, an exception has been created by the 2003 Rules and a married son irrespective of the age has been made eligible. Therefore, it is conceded position that the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the basis of age (P-3) unsustainable because the case is required to be considered in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8 of the 2003 Rules. 5. We have thoughtfully considered the respective submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and are of-the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. The only question which requires determination is as to whether the bar created on the basis of age can be imposed on the petitioner or such a bar is in-applicable as contemplated by Rule 8(e) of the 2003 Rules. It would be necessary to make a reference to Rule 3(e), 8 and 13 of the 2003 Rules, which reads as under: Rule 3(e) of the 2003 Rules: 3. In these rules unless the context otherwise requires.- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (e) "dependent" means - (i) spouse of the deceased Government employee or missing Government employee; (ii) son (including adopted son) till he attains the age of 25 years subject to the proof of adoption. as envisaged in the - Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. (78 of 1956); (iii) unmarried daughter (including adopted "daughter") till she attains the age of 25 years subject to the proof of adoptions as envisaged in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956); (iv) the person who was wholly dependent at the time of his/her death. Rule 8 of the 2003 Rules: 8. (78 of 1956); (iii) unmarried daughter (including adopted "daughter") till she attains the age of 25 years subject to the proof of adoptions as envisaged in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956); (iv) the person who was wholly dependent at the time of his/her death. Rule 8 of the 2003 Rules: 8. The criteria for eligibility under these Rules shall be as under: (a) the family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution. (b) The monthly income of the family shall not exceed Rs. 6000/- per month, from all sources other than family pension. For this purpose, the income of the entire family of the deceased Government employee will be taken into account, and not just the income of the entire family of the deceased Government employee will be taken into account and not just the income of the dependent who has applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. (c) The applicant for appointment should be eligible and suitable for the post in all respects under the provisions of the relevant recruitment rules. (d) Where spouse of the deceased is already in Government service, no other dependent member shall be eligible for appointment or ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance. (e) Married son of the deceased will be eligible only if no other member of the family is eligible for Government service and his spouse is not already in Government service and unmarried eligible dependent is not willing to loin service and give an affidavit to this effect. (f) Where dependent of the deceased Government employee does not become eligible for appointment on any ground or within three years of the death of the Government employee he/she shall not be eligible for the ex-gratia compassionate financial assistance also. (g) The prescribed education qualifications and lower/upper age limits, would not be relaxed for appointments. (Emphasis added) Rule 13 of the 2003 Rules: 13. A person appointed under these rules shall give an undertaking in writing as in Form D that he/she will maintain all the other members who were completely dependent on the deceased/missing Government employee, and in case it is proved subsequently, that the family members are being neglected or, are (in?) case it is proved subsequently, that the family members are being neglected or, are not being maintained by him/her, his/her appointment may be terminated forthwith. A condition to this effect, shall also be insetted in his/her "appointment letter. 6. A perusal of the above extracted Rules makes it evident that a married son of the deceased has been made eligible provided his spouse is not already in Government service. Another condition imposed is that an un-married eligible dependent has not shown willingness to join service and an affidavit to that effect has been filed. The prohibition contained in first two lines or the Sub-rule (e) of Rule 8 that married son could be eligible only if no other member of the family is eligible for Government service is mitigated by permitting in the later part of the sub-rule that such an unmarried eligible dependent is required to give an affidavit that he was not willing to join service. Therefore, we find that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he was over 25 years of age was not hit by the prohibition contained in Sub-rule (e) of Rule 3 of the 2003 Rules and the impugned order dated 17.9.2003 (P-3).cannot be upheld. 7. We are further of the view that a person appointed under 2003 Rules is also required to file an undertaking in writing in Form D that he would maintain all other members who were completely dependent on the deceased Government employee. The aforementioned course is necessary because in the case of offering job to a married eligible defendant, as per Sub-rule (e) of Rule 8 of the 2003 Rules, and if he later refuses or neglects to maintain other dependent members of the family of the deceased then his services can be terminated forthwith. It is for this reason that Rule 13 of the 2003 Rules, in clear terms provide that in case of neglect or refusal to maintain other dependent members of the family, the services of such a person can be terminated forthwith. It is for this reason that Rule 13 of the 2003 Rules, in clear terms provide that in case of neglect or refusal to maintain other dependent members of the family, the services of such a person can be terminated forthwith. The prayer made by the learned Counsel for the respondents has to be considered in this context when he argued that the deficiencies in the application filed by the petitioner have been pointed out by the respondents with regard to filing of affidavit by the wife of the petitioner and other eligible dependent members of the family of the deceased to show that wife of the petitioner is not in Government employment and that the other eligible dependent members of the family of the deceased are not willing to join duties, as per the provisions of Sub-rule (e) of Rule 8 of the 2003 Rules. 8. In view of above, we allow this petition and set aside the impugned order dated 17.9.2003 (P-3). The petitioner shall file all the documents as required by the respondents under 2003 Rules within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received by him. On the furnishing of necessary documents by the petitioner and other dependent eligible members of the deceased family, the case of the petitioner shall be considered afresh and it shall not be rejected on the ground that the petitioner has become over age in accordance with the 2003 Rules. The needful shall be done within further period of three months after submission of documents within two months. If the petitioner is found eligible and consequently entitled for appointment, necessary orders be issued within a period of three months as already specified. 9. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. A copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.