JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition has been filed assailing order dated 07/03/1998 pursuant to which the petitioner was informed that since Shri Sitaram Jat elder son of Shri Ram Niwas, who died while in service holding the post of Teacher on 22/04/1995, is already in Government Service, his application could not be considered in view of R.5 of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 ("Rules, 1996"). 2. R.5 of Rules, 1996 clearly postulates that if any member of deceased Government servant's family is already employed on regular basis under Central/State Government or statutory Board, Organisation/Corporation owned or controlled wholly or partially by the Central/Government at the time of death of Government servant, his dependents are not entitled for compassionate appointment. Indisputably, brother of petitioner is in Government service holding post of Teacher Gr.III, which certainly dis-entitles him to claim compassionate appointment by virtue of R.5 of Rules, 1996. 3. Counsel for petitioner submits that his eligibility was to be looked into on the date of death of Government servant; and there was no such bar for a dependant of deceased Government servant to seek compassionate appointment under Rules, 1975 and the Rules, 1996 have no application in the facts of instant case. 4. Submission of Counsel for the petitioner about applicability of Rules, 1975, is without substance for the reason that once Rules, 1975 stood repealed upon enforcement of Rules, 1996, all pending applications by virtue of R.15 are certainly to be considered under Rules, 1996, as has been held by Division Bench of this Court in Board of Rajasthan v. Rajendra, (2001(2) WLC (Raj.) 51) ad infra: "Law is well settled that whenever an Act is repealed, it must be considered, except as to transactions passed and closed as if it had never existed. The effect of repeal vide rule 15 in the present case was to obliterate the Rules of 1975 completely from the book and as if it has never been framed and it never existed to the extent of actions which were initiated, taken and concluded while the rules of 1975 were existing. Moreover existence of corresponding provisions similar to the one contained in repealed provisions is condition precedent to claim that a different intention does not appear in the new rules and, therefore, the rights of the dependants would not stand affected under the new rules. Moreover existence of corresponding provisions similar to the one contained in repealed provisions is condition precedent to claim that a different intention does not appear in the new rules and, therefore, the rights of the dependants would not stand affected under the new rules. If certain provisions of the new rules are inconsistent and incompatible with the old rules, such rights automatically get obliterated and as a result & effect of the provisions relating to repeal, earlier provisions no longer survive." "While a son/daughter who is already employed may not be dependant on the deceased Government servant, but at the same time, he continues to be the member of the family and on that ground rule 5 of the Rules would immediately get attracted. Although the rule making authority has made an exception for the widow of the deceased Government servant, if seeks employment for herself. In our view the rules has to be interpreted in proper perspective so that its purpose is given effect to and the provision contained is allowed to operate without rendering it otiose." Taking note whereof (supra), this Court finds no error being committed while rejecting candidature of petitioner for seeking compassionate appointment. 5. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.Petition Dismissed. *******