JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 06/10/2008 whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated after serving as Safai Karmachari on which he was appointed vide order dated 16/05/1997 under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975'and served for a period of more than 9 years. 2. Petitioner's grand-father Mr.Gopi Lal son of Mr. Panna Lal, who was working as Jamadar in Municipal Corporation, Kota, died while in service. Since his son Mohan Lal, father of the petitioner, being mentally retarded and was ineligible to be considered for compassionate appointment, as such, the Municipal Corporation, Kota considered it appropriate to grant employment to the grand-son of the deceased employee, under the provisions of Rules, 1975 as a Safai Karmachari in the regular pay scale vide order dated 16/05/1997. Later he was granted benefit of selection grade on completion of 9 years of service and was confirmed in the cadre as evident from Anx.2 dated 15/04/2008. 3. It is manifest from the record that after the petitioner served as a Safai Karmchari for a sufficient long time and holding the post in substantive capacity, it was brought to the notice of the Director, Local Bodies at a later stage and it was revealed that on the date when the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 16/05/1997, 'The Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996' came into force after being published in the Gazette w.e.f. 31/12/1996 and the petitioner, being grand-son of the deceased, could not have been considered to be a dependent under Rule 2(c) of the Rules,1996 and on the said premise, the decision was taken to terminate his services vide order dated 06/10/2008. 4. 4. Counsel for petitioner submits that grandfather of the petitioner died while in service on 10/10/1993 and the application was submitted under the Rules, 1975 which were in in vogue and after it was processed, the Municipal Corporation, Kota took a sympathetic view that since son of the deceased is mentally retarded and there was none else in the family to take care of the destitute family of the deceased who served the Municipal Corporation, Kota and the petitioner being indisputably dependent under the Rules, 1975 and was accordingly appointed vide order dated 16/05/1997 but the process took some time and on the date of passing of the order of appointment, the Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996 came into force but the fact ultimately remains that grand-father of petitioner since died on 10/10/1993, the application of the petitioner was to be expedited but it was kept pending and to the dismay of the petitioner, being the only male member in the family to take care of the dependents of the deceased, which includes his father who is mentally retarded person as his application was being processed under the Rules, 1975 which cannot be said to be illegal in any manner. 5. Counsel for petitioner further submits that when there was no concealment/ misrepresentation made on the part of the petitioner and his application was pending and was also dependent of the deceased under Rules, 1975, the action of the respondents in terminating his services that too in violation of the principles of natural justice after a period of more than 9 years and by that time he got selection grade and made permanent on the post held, was wholly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. Counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner in-fact got appointment in 1997 and by that time, the Rules, 1996 came into force which indisputably holds the petitioner ineligible as he could not have been considered to be dependent in terms of rule 2(c) of the Rules, 1996 and in these circumstances, the decision, which has been taken by the respondents in terminating services of the petitioner was in conformity with the Scheme of Rules, 1996 and granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in the peculiar facts of the instant case, remains an empty formality and is not going to serve any purpose. 7. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 8. The peculiar facts of this case, which have been brought to the notice of this Court, depict that grand-father of the petitioner died on 10/10/2003 and the application was processed under the Rules, 1975 which were in force at the relevant time. Rule 2(f) of the Rules, 1975, which defines 'family' of the deceased Government servant entitled for compassionate appointment, relevant for the purpose is reproduced as under:- "2(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 the law by the deceased Government Servant,] who were dependant 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 Deptt. Of Personnel.]" 9. The petitioner was indisputably one of the dependents as grand-son of the deceased under Rules, 1975 and taking note of the fact that the petitioner's father (son of the deceased), being a mental retarded person and no one was there in the family to take care of the destitute family of the deceased, in these circumstances, the respondents considered the petitioner for compassionate appointment as a Safai Karmachari and pursuant thereto was appointed vide order dated 16/05/1997 and after he got benefit of selection grade and made permanent in the cadre, in the opinion of this court, certain rights stood conferred in favour of the petitioner which could not have been divested by the respondents without affording opportunity of hearing to him and denial thereof, holds the action of the respondents to be arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 the Constitution of India. 10. 10. In the instant case, indisputably no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and this being a cardinal principle of administrative law that no one should be condemned unheard, passing of the order impugned terminating services of the petitioner, has certainly deprived him of his livelihood without affording opportunity of hearing to him and in such circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, the order impugned terminating services of the petitioner deserves to be set aside. 11. Before parting with the judgment, this Court would like to record that the petitioner got appointment on the post of Safai Karmchari and it is not the case of the respondents that he was not eligible to hold the post and in such peculiar facts where his grand-father died while in service and his father is mental retarded person and in such circumstances, if he was considered by the Municipal Corporation, Kota for appointment as Safai Karmchari, it is only with the object contemplated by the rule making authority under the Rules of 1975 and so also the Rules of 1996 to provide social protection to the destitute family of the deceased employee who served the respondents. 12. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed. The order impugned dated 06/10/2008 is hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service. However, in the facts of the instant case, taking note of the fact that the petitioner had served prior to passing of the order impugned for more than 9 years and moreso there was no misrepresentation on his part and was otherwise eligible to hold the post, this Court considers it appropriate to observe that it is not a case where liberty can be granted to the respondents to now take any fresh action against the petitioner. However, it is further made clear that on being reinstated pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner will be entitled for notional fixation of pay and other service benefits but shall not be paid the actual salary for the period during which he had not worked. The respondents shall ensure compliance of the order within two months. No costs.Petition allowed. *******