JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. Delay in Special Appeals No. 1114/2007 and 1152/2007 condoned. Defects overruled 3. Although learned Single Judge has decided as many as 47 writ petitions, the State of Rajasthan preferred only 10 appeals whereas one appeal has been filed by Mohd. Sharif. 4. Operative part of the impugned order reads as under : "For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions : 1. That the applications rejected by the respondents on the ground that one of the family member is employed, is contrary to Rule 5 and shall be considered again; however, keeping in view the reasonable time restraint. 2. Where the appointment is sought on the basis of adoption and the said adoption is not within the age of 15 years, it is contrary to Sections 5 and 10 of the Adoption Act of 1956. These petitions are dismissed. 3. Wherein the petitioners pleaded that there is a custom in their community for adoption beyond 15 years, they are at liberty to prove the custom before the Civil Court. Such petitions are dismissed at this stage. 4. The applications rejected on the ground of being filed belatedly, those petitions are dismissed as the judgments of Supreme Court. apply per incurium to the facts of these cases. 5. That the applications pending with,the respondents, should be disposed of within two months. 6. Where the applications have been pending or rejected because of the non-availability of the posts, the respondents shall consider those applications and pass appropriate orders within reasonable time, of course taking into consideration the time restraint as pointed out in the course of judgment. 7. Where the petitioner is seeking to be appointed as L.D.C. on the basis of his qualification and the respondents have engaged him as daily wager, the respondents shall consider him for being appointed against Class IV Post or L.D.C. as the requirement of law has not been satisfied. 8. The applications rejected on the ground that the deceased employee worked for a few months is not sustainable. The respondents are directed to consider the applications positively and pass appropriate orders. 9. Where the petitioner, being qualified for higher post have applied to be appointed against higher post, such as Naib Tehsildar or Inspector, their compassionate appointment against lower post is justified. These petitions are dismissed." 5. The respondents are directed to consider the applications positively and pass appropriate orders. 9. Where the petitioner, being qualified for higher post have applied to be appointed against higher post, such as Naib Tehsildar or Inspector, their compassionate appointment against lower post is justified. These petitions are dismissed." 5. Till Rajasthan Compassionate appointment of dependent of deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (for short 'Rules of 1996') came into force, Rajasthan Recruitment of dependent of Government Servants Dying while in Service Rules, 1975 (for short Rules of 1975) and orders issued thereunder were applicable to the dependents of the deceased Government Servants. 6. The settled legal position in relation to compassionate appointment is as under:- (i) The dependents of the deceased Government Servants who died before promulgation of Rules of 1996, i.e., before January 25, 1997 shall be governed by the Rules of 1975 and the orders issued thereunder. Rules of 1996 shall not be made applicable to such cases. The Government servants who died before January 25, 1997 their cases have to be decided w view of Rules of 1975. (ii) Rules 5 and 10(3) and (6) of the Rules of 1996 have been adjudged valid. Time limit of 45 days from the date of receipt of the application may be fixed so as to avoid the allegation of proceeding at a place unduly slow like a snail walk. If application is received after prescribed period of 45 days and reasonable explanation is afforded for such delay then the Government or authority concerned should take recourse to the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in condoning the delay. 7. It is stated at the Bar that the State Government implemented the directions of learned Single Judge in more than 30 matters and did not choose to file appeal in those matters. However, only ten matters have been chosen for filing appeals. We see no infirmity in the directions issued by the learned Single Judge to the State Government and the appeals preferred by the State Government being devoid of merit stand dismissed. 8. We, however, allow the appeal (77/2008) of Mohd. Sharif. While setting aside the order of learned Single Judge, qua Mohd. Sharif, we direct. that application of Mohd. Sharif shall be decided afresh in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. 8. We, however, allow the appeal (77/2008) of Mohd. Sharif. While setting aside the order of learned Single Judge, qua Mohd. Sharif, we direct. that application of Mohd. Sharif shall be decided afresh in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. There shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.Order Accordingly. *******