Massodi, J.— 1. Shri Vikram Singh - appellant before the Court, lost his parents and sister in a tragic road accident on 13.6.1986 when the vehicle in which they were travelling from Jammu to Srinagar, fell victim to an accident at Battery Cheshma, Ramban. The appellant survived but was seriously injured and is living with 75% permanent disability due to the unfortunate accident. His disability, however, did not discourage him to get enrolled in School and pursue his academic career. He passed his 10+2 examination from the Board of School Education in the year 2006. 2. Soon after the appellant attained majority, he approached the respondents with an application for his appointment on compassionate grounds. The case set up by the appellant was that his father an employee of the floriculture Department has died in harness and that the appellant as the only surviving dependent of the deceased employee, had a right to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. 3. The appellant's case for compassionate appointment was processed at the level of Directorate of Floriculture and submitted vide No. DF/Estt/1093/2658-59 dated 10.01.2005 to Principal Secretary to Government Tourism and Floriculture Department. The recommendation was reiterated in communication No. DF/Estt/1093/430 dated 23.10.2007. The respondent No. 1 slept over the matter for next three years. The Under Secretary to Govt. Floriculture Department vide his No. TSM/Flori-08/2005-CMS dated 15.01.2008 informed the Director Floriculture, Jammu that appellant's case was "not covered under rules". 4. The appellant aggrieved with the communication No. TSM/Flori-08/2005-CMS dated 15.01.2008 whereby his claim was rejected, approached this court with a writ petition being SWP No. 1250/2009. The appellant pleaded that he was one and half years old at the time of the accident that claimed lives of his parents and sister that because of the accident he was tendered disabled for the rest of life and therefore continued to be in a disadvantageous position on the date he approached the respondents with an application for his appointment on compassionate grounds. He insisted that as he was minor at the time of accident and therefore not in a position to seek benefit under the Compassionate Appointment Rules in vogue, he could not be denied the benefit on the ground of delay on his part in approaching the respondents with his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds. He insisted that as he was minor at the time of accident and therefore not in a position to seek benefit under the Compassionate Appointment Rules in vogue, he could not be denied the benefit on the ground of delay on his part in approaching the respondents with his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds. It is pleaded that SRO 43 of 1994 did not stand his way as even if it was held applicable, there was a provision for relaxation of rules in appropriate cases. Pleading that the impugned communication was an arbitrary and capricious exercise of executive power, the appellant sought a direction to the respondents to appoint him on compassionate grounds w.e.f the date he put forth his claim for such appointment. 5. The writ court dismissed the writ petition at its threshold without notice to the respondents on the grounds that the Jammu & Kashmir (Compassionate Appointment) Rules 1994, hereinafter the Rules of 1994, are intended to mitigate hardships of family members of an employee dying in harness, who "suffer immediate deprivation of source of sustenance" and the concession cannot be extended to a person who has survived for years together and has overcome the need for survival through some other means. Ld. Single Judge opined that the employment under Government is a public property and every eligible candidate is to be given opportunity to compete for such employment and a persons who has survived the crisis, because of sudden death of his relative on whom he is dependent, would not be entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds and has to compete with other candidates for a post under the Government. 6. The writ court judgment dated 28.7.2009 is questioned in the Letters Patent Appeal on hand on the grounds set out in the memorandum of appeal. 7. We have gone through the writ court judgment, as also writ record. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties. 8. The Jammu & Kashmir (Compassionate Appointment) Rules 1994 provide for appointment of an eligible family member of a Government employee who dies in harness, against a vacancy in the lowest rank of a Non Gazetted services or Class IV post having qualification as prescribed under the relevant recruitment Rules. We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties. 8. The Jammu & Kashmir (Compassionate Appointment) Rules 1994 provide for appointment of an eligible family member of a Government employee who dies in harness, against a vacancy in the lowest rank of a Non Gazetted services or Class IV post having qualification as prescribed under the relevant recruitment Rules. In terms of proviso to Rule-3, the applicant must be eligible and qualified for such post on the date of death in harness of the Govt. employee or must attain eligibility and qualification within a period of one year from the date of death of the deceased Government employee. The appellant admittedly was not having eligibility and qualification for a post under Government on the date his father - an employee of the Floriculture Department, died in harness. He also did not attain eligibility or qualification within one year from the date of death of his father. The appellant approached the respondents with a claim for appointment on compassionate grounds 18 years after death of his father. Ld. Single Judge while holding that the appellant was not entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment, appears to have been influenced by proviso to Rule-3 (1) Jammu & Kashmir (Compassionate Appointment) Rules 1994, that while fixing one year as the outer limit for attaining eligibility and qualification for Government employment, in effect prescribed the period for putting up the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds. It for one or the other reason escaped, attention of Ld. Single Judge that the Government in terms of Rule 7 Jammu & Kashmir (Compassionate Appointment) Rules 1994, has power to relax the lower or upper age limits or educational/technical qualification as .the case may be, in deserving cases and that in the present case the Govt. had not accorded consideration to such relaxation in favour of the appellant. 9. However, this is not the real controversy in the present case. had not accorded consideration to such relaxation in favour of the appellant. 9. However, this is not the real controversy in the present case. The question arises as to whether the appellant's claim was to be dealt with at the anvil of Jammu & Kashmir (Compassionate Appointment) Rules 1994 that are deemed to have come into force from 24.9.1991 i.e. a few years after the vehicular accident, claiming life of appellant's father, took place or his claim was to be considered on the touchstone of compassionate appointment Rules, if any, in force on 13.6.1986 i.e the date of the death of Shri Kulwant Singh - father of the appellant. Let us first see whether any rules providing for appointment on compassionate grounds were in vogue on the aforesaid date. 10. The State Government in the year 1969 made Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Decentralization and Recruitment to Non-Gazetted Cadres) Rules 1969 notified as SRO 588 on 21.10.1969. The Rules of 1969 made a provision for appointment on compassionate grounds. The provision for compassionate appointments in Rules of 1969, was followed by J&K Employees (Death in harness) Dependents Rules 1989 notified as SRO 194 of 1989. The Rules of 1989 were replaced by J&K Compassionate Appointment Rules 1991 notified vide SRO 283 of 1991. J&K compassionate Appointment Rules of 1994 notified vide SRO 43 of 1994 repealed the Rules of 1991. The Rules of 1994 presently occupy the field. However, for the present controversy, Rule 5(1) (viii) added by SRO 122 dated 24.3.1983 to the Rules of 1969, needs to be noticed. It reads: "5(1) i................... ii,.................. J&K compassionate Appointment Rules of 1994 notified vide SRO 43 of 1994 repealed the Rules of 1991. The Rules of 1994 presently occupy the field. However, for the present controversy, Rule 5(1) (viii) added by SRO 122 dated 24.3.1983 to the Rules of 1969, needs to be noticed. It reads: "5(1) i................... ii,.................. viii, A vacancy occurring in a department due to the death of a Government employee in harness may be filled up in accordance with the prescribed rules, subject to the condition that son/adopted son daughter/adopted daughter/wife or dependent sister brother of a deceased government employee is provided employment in the Department on any vacancy in the non gazetted cadre in the lowest rank or against any post for which he/she may be fully qualified: Provided that:- (I) the appointing authority shall satisfy itself through personal enquiries or otherwise and after obtaining a report from the concerned Revenue Officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner that the grant of concession is justified having regard to the number of dependents left by the deceased Government servant, the assets and liabilities left by him, the income of the earning member(s) if any, and also his liabilities. (II) In most deserving cases, the concerned Head of the Department may recommend to the competent authority- (a) for relaxation of his/her age bar not beyond 40 years in the case of upper age limit and by not more than four years in the case of lower age limit. (b) for relaxation of qualification in the case of posts for which minimum qualification prescribed is Matriculation or its equivalent subject to the condition that the beneficiary at the time of such appointment is not below the level of Middle Standard and that he/she acquires such qualification within a period of not more than two years failing which his/her services shall be terminated; (c) for grant of suitable scholarship not less than Rs. 100 per month in each case by the Education Department to the minor children left behind by the deceased Government employee till such time as they pass the Matriculation examination and thereafter be considered for appointment. (III) Benefit of compassionate appointment shall not be granted to more than one dependent of the deceased Government employee. 100 per month in each case by the Education Department to the minor children left behind by the deceased Government employee till such time as they pass the Matriculation examination and thereafter be considered for appointment. (III) Benefit of compassionate appointment shall not be granted to more than one dependent of the deceased Government employee. (IV) In case of beneficiaries being illiterate, the concerned Head of the Department may consider his/her case for employment on any post defined in Schedule II of J&K CSRs subject to the age limitation prescribed above. (V) Cases of those beneficiaries who are better qualified but are not in a position to find suitable posts in the Engineering and other technical Departments be considered for appointment against suitable posts in other Departments under the orders of the Chief Minister in co-ordination. (VI) No benefit will be admissible under this scheme in a case in which the monthly income reported by the Assistant Commissioner exceeds Rs. 1000 per month. Provided further that the case of compassionate appointment shall be finalized within a period of three months from the date of death of Government employee under the orders of the Minister-in-charge. 11. It is evident that on the death of Shri Kulwant Singh father of the appellant, Rule 5(1)(viii) J&K Civil Services (Decentralization and Recruitment to Non Gazetted Cadres) Rules 1969 as amended by SRO 122 of 1983 providing for compassionate appointment amongst other relations to son of a Government employee dying in harness, was in force. The appellant obviously on 13.6.1986 got right to be considered for compassionate appointment. He, however, could not get any benefit because he did not fulfill requirements of lower age limit prescribed under Article 37 Civil Service Regulations 1956. Further more he did not possess the requisite academic qualification for a post under the Government. It is important to note that Rule 5(i)(viii) Rules of 1969 unlike Rule - 3 of the Rules 1994, did not prescribe any time limit for qualifying eligibility or qualification for employment in the Government. The question arises whether Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994 extinguished the right that accrued to the appellant under Rules of 1969 as amended by SRO 122 of 1983. The matter was considered by this Court in Vijay Kumar v. State and others (SWP No. 488/1998). The question arises whether Rule 3 of the Rules of 1994 extinguished the right that accrued to the appellant under Rules of 1969 as amended by SRO 122 of 1983. The matter was considered by this Court in Vijay Kumar v. State and others (SWP No. 488/1998). The petitioner before the writ Court had lost his father some time before the Rules of 1994 came into force. His claim for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected on the grounds that the claim was barred under Rule 3 (i) proviso of Rules of 1994. The order declining compassionate appointment was questioned in the aforementioned writ petition. The court allowed the writ petition and held that the Rules of 1994, are not retrospective in nature and would only govern a case where death had occurred after the Rules came into force. The writ court referring to law laid down in Gurdeep Singh v. The Haryana State Electricity Board 1997 (4) SCT 833 (P&H), Smt. M. Reddamma v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, 1997 (3) SCT 86, A. Ksheera Sagar v. A.P. Dairy Development Corp. Fed. Ltd. 1997 (3) SCT 515, Sushma Gosain and ors. v. Union of India & ors. AIR 1989 SC 1976 , Saroj v. State of Haryana and ors. 1997(1) SCT 229, Dharam Pal v. Haryana State Electricity Board 1996 (2) SCT 300, Daya Kour v. Haryana State Electricity Board 1996 (2) SCT 447, Hakim Singh v. VS. H.S.E.B and anr. 1995(4) SCT 746 (P&H) : 2005 (5) SLR 274, Tarun Chakaraborty v. State of West Bengal & ors. 1996 (2) SCT 799, Asif Hamid and ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir AIR 1989 SC 1899 , Jagdeep Kumar v. State of Haryana 1996 (1) SCT 731, Vishal Sharma v. Haryana State Electricity Board 1995 (4) SCT 801, held that "the dependent of the deceased employee" was entitled to compassionate appointment on the date of death of the employee and in the event there was shift in the policy the dependent's case was to be considered on the basis of the policy in vogue at the time of death of the Government employee. It was further held that where a person seeking employment, was a minor at the time of the death of the Government employee, he is entitled to compassionate appointment on attaining majority and in such cases the only enquiry required to be made, would be one to find out whether the family of the deceased employee, continues to be in hardship and the compassionate appointment would mitigate such hardship. 12. In Gh. Mohi-ud-Din v. Union of India and others 2000 SLJ (1), father of the appellant died on 21.11.1973 leaving behind his widow and his minor son. The son of the deceased attained majority in the year 1985 and approached the Government with a claim for his appointment on compassionate grounds. His claim was rejected, constraining him to invoke writ jurisdiction of the court. The writ petition was dismissed. The writ court judgment was set, aside in the LPA. Delay in approaching the Department for appointment on Compassionate appointment was held not to be lethal to the claim as the appellant continued to be in hardship. In Sajad Ahmad Mir v. State and Others SLJ 2003 (1) 164: 2010 (4) JKJ IIC-114 (DB) Govt. servant died in harness in 1987, the claim set up by the ward for appointment on compassionate grounds was pending when Rules of 1994 came into force and came to be rejected on the sole ground that the claim did not satisfy the requirement of Rule 3 (1) of the Rules of 1994. The writ petition against the order rejecting the claim was allowed. It was held that the cause of action had accrued in 1987, the claim was to be considered in light of Rules occupying the field at the time of death of the Govt. employee. The principle of law was reiterated in Kumar Shiv Satya Narayan v. State of J&K & Ors, 2013 (1) JKJ HC-454 decided on 8.2.2013. 13. From the above discussion it follows that the appellant's claim deserved to be considered on the anvil of Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Decentralization and Recruitment to Non Gazetted Cadres) Rules, 1969 notified as SRO 588 of 1969 dated 21.10.1969 as amended by SRO 122 of 1983 dated 24.3.1983 and not on touchstone of Rule 3 (1) Rules of 1994. 14. 14. It is pertinent to point out that there has been neither acquiescence/waiver, on part of the appellant nor any delay on his part in projecting his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds. The appellant was one and half years old at the time of unfortunate accident that resulted in death of his father and attained majority in the year 2005. He approached the State Government without losing any time soon after he got majority and has been ever-since prosecuting his case. The promptitude shown by the appellant in projecting his claim is of utmost importance as rights available under a set of rules, may be taken to have been extinguished under new set. Rules replacing the earlier Rules, where a person claiming benefit under old Rules is found to have acquiesced/waived his rights under old Rules or guilty of inordinate and inexplicable delay in projecting his claim. The appellant having neither acquiesced/waived his rights nor slept over the matter, therefore has a right to have his claim considered on the basis of Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Decentralization and Recruitment to Non-Gazetted Cadres) Rules 1969 notified as SRO 588 on 21.10.1969 - occupying the field on the date of death of his father. 15. The litmus test in all such cases is whether the person claiming benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds continues to be exposed to the hardship that befell him because of the sudden demise of Govt. employee on whom he was dependent. The appellant lost his father when he was one and half years old. The accident that claimed life of his father, left him permanently disabled for rest of his life. Only because of the appellant has lived on handouts and leg-ups during his childhood and somehow kept his head above water, must not persuade us to believe that he has survived the worst years and does not face any hardship because of the tragic demise of his father at the time he was a suckling baby. When we assess whether a family or a member thereof that has lost the only breadwinner has been able to tide over the crisis, we should not only be influenced by the fact that the members of the family because of one or other reason have been able to survive. Death of the dependent of a Govt. When we assess whether a family or a member thereof that has lost the only breadwinner has been able to tide over the crisis, we should not only be influenced by the fact that the members of the family because of one or other reason have been able to survive. Death of the dependent of a Govt. servant who has died in harness, is not the test to satisfy ourselves that such dependent has not survived the crisis in which he was plunged because of sudden demise of the Government servant. We have to be compassionate in the matter as the label given to the Rules would suggest and examine whether the dependent of a Government servant who died in harness claiming appointment on compassionate grounds would have been better of had the Government servant not lost his life. 16. In the present case, the appellant before us, was an infant on the date he lost his father. His will power did not allow the tragedy that befell him, to dampen his spirit and blunt his urge to pursue his academic career. He with his 75% permanent disability continues to be exposed to the hardship with which he was visited on death of his father. The appellant therefore is entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of Rules occupying the field on the date of death of his father. We do not feel persuaded to agree with the writ court that the appellant has survived the crisis and does not face any hardship so as to lay a claim for appointment on compassionate grounds. 17. For the reasons discussed, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment dated 28.7.2009. The respondents shall accord consideration to the appellant's appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance with the Rules in vogue on the date of death of his father and shall finalize the matter within four weeks from the date copy of this order is served on them. Disposed of.