JUDGMENT 1. - The intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.02.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge directing the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others (appellant Corporation, for short), to consider the claim of the writ petitioner's son for appointment on compassionate grounds. 2. The essential facts for appreciation of the controversy raised are that the writ petitioner, whose husband Late Mahaveer Singh, was an employee of the appellant Corporation and the appellant Corporation vide order dated 07.01.2009 declined the claim of writ petitioner's son for appointment on compassionate grounds under the "Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996" (hereinafter, 'Rules of 1996'), as not sustainable under the Scheme of the Rules of 1996. Claim for compassionate appointment could be sustained only where the "Deceased Government Servant" was appointed either on regular or urgent temporary or ad-hoc basis. However, it is an admitted position that husband of the writ petitioner was selected and given appointment by the appellant Corporation on 26.06.2002, in response to an advertisement published in daily newspaper "Dainik Bhaskar", wherein the applications were invited from the eligible candidates for preparation of panel for appointment to the post of 'Driver' in the appellant Corporation as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement. The writ petitioner's husband Late Shri Mahaveer Singh, was accorded appointment, however, term 'contract' in the offer of appointment was inserted and the appointment was offered for two months on fixed pay of Rs. 2,100/- per month and his services were extended from time to time and ultimately, vide order dated 12.01.2005, regular pay scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4590 was accorded to him. The writ petitioner's husband, while on duty as 'Driver' on the bus of the appellant Corporation, suffered a fatal accident on 10.04.2006. 3. It was in the backdrop of the facts aforesaid, the writ petitioner prayed for consideration of appointment of her son on compassionate grounds in view of the circular issued by the appellant Corporation on 14.06.2006. 4. The writ petitioner's husband, while on duty as 'Driver' on the bus of the appellant Corporation, suffered a fatal accident on 10.04.2006. 3. It was in the backdrop of the facts aforesaid, the writ petitioner prayed for consideration of appointment of her son on compassionate grounds in view of the circular issued by the appellant Corporation on 14.06.2006. 4. The appellant Corporation in response to the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner, submitted counter-affidavit denying the claim of the writ petitioner for the reason that the writ petitioner's husband (Late Mahaveer Singh), was engaged on 'contract basis' though admitted the fact of his appointment for the period from the date of his initial appointment w.e.f. 26.06.2002 till he met the fatal accident on 10.04.2006. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Corporation and writ petitioners (respondent herein). 6. The learned Single Judge taking note of the pleadings of the parties and the material available on record granted the prayer of the writ petitioner, quashing the impugned order dated 07.01.2009, with a direction to the appellant Corporation, to consider the claim of the writ petitioner's son for appointment on compassionate grounds within a period of 2 months. It is this direction for consideration, of which the appellant Corporation is aggrieved off and the same has been impugned by way of the present intra-court appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant Corporation on being queried about the procedure and nature of the appointment of the "Deceased Employee" (Late Mahaveer Singh), fairly conceded that the same was a regular appointment for all practical purposes. The impugned judgment and order dated 01.02.2013 has been assailed on the ground that since the deceased employee was appointed on 'contractual basis' and therefore, he was not a "Deceased Government Employee", within the meaning of 'definition' of the Rules of 1996. That apart, since the service tenure of the 'Deceased Employee' was never regularised for the reason that his work was not satisfactory, hence, the action of the appellant Corporation in declining the prayer of the writ petitioner's son for compassionate appointment, could not be faulted. An attempt was also made to justify the action of the appellant Corporation on the ground that though the 'Deceased Employee' worked for 3 years, 9 months and 14 days, but did not work for 298 days in a year. An attempt was also made to justify the action of the appellant Corporation on the ground that though the 'Deceased Employee' worked for 3 years, 9 months and 14 days, but did not work for 298 days in a year. However, no such plea appears to have been taken by the appellant Corporation in the counter-affidavit to the writ petition. 8. The Rules of 1996 enforced w.e.f. 25.01.1997 in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India; under Rule 2 of the Rules of 1996 defines "Deceased Government Servant". Rule 2 of the Rules of 1996 reads thus:- "2. Definitions : ...... (a) ......... (b) "Deceased Government Servant" means a person who was employed in connection with the affairs of the State including a member of All India Services of Rajasthan State Cadre and whose pay was debitable to the consolidated fund of the State and who died while in service and who was:- (i) Permanent, or (ii) holding a post temporarily after appointment on regular basis, and had put in at least three years continuous service including period of probation as probationer-trainee." 9. A bare perusal of Rule 2(b)(ii) of the Rules of 1996 would reveal that "Deceased Government Servant" means a person who was employed/appointed against a regular vacancy on urgent/temporary and had put in one years' continuous service as such. The details of working days furnished by the counsel for the appellant Corporation with reference to the deceased employee (Late Mahaveer Singh), details out that in the year 2002-03, he worked for 231 days; in the year 2003-04, he worked 294 days; in the year 2004-05, total number of working days were 304 and in the year 2005-06, w.e.f. June 2005 to 10.04.2006 (date of death); the deceased employee, worked for 235 days. Rule 2(b) defining "Deceased Government Servant" was amended by notification No.F.7(2)DOP/A-II/2005 dated 13.6.2008, with immediate effect and thereafter read as under:- "2. Rule 2(b) defining "Deceased Government Servant" was amended by notification No.F.7(2)DOP/A-II/2005 dated 13.6.2008, with immediate effect and thereafter read as under:- "2. Definitions - In these Rules unless the context otherwise requires:- (b) "Deceased Government Servant" means a person who was employed in connection with the affairs of the State including a member of All India Services of Rajasthan State Cadre and whose pay was debitable to the consolidated fund of the State and who died while in service and who was:- (i) Permanent, or (ii) holding a post temporarily after appointment on regular basis, and had put in at least one year continuous service as probationer-trainee." 10. Thus, denial of the writ petitioner's claim on the basis of amended definition of "Deceased Government Servant" made w.e.f. 13.06.2008, is absolutely baseless and without any factual foundation since the amendment was w.e.f. 13.06.2008. So also the denial of the claim on the pretext that the deceased employee did not put in 298 days in a year, is without any basis since no such condition could be pointed out to have been stipulated, by the learned counsel for the appellant Corporation, under the Rules or in the advertisement. Somewhat similar controversy was also adjudicated upon in case of Sarita Kanwar v. State & 2 Ors. [2009 WLC (Raj.) UC 138] , which has been relied by the writ petitioner and the same has attained finality, as admitted by the counsel for the appellant Corporation; wherein continuance of an incumbent for a sufficient long time on 'contract basis', though appointment could be made either on regular or urgent temporary or ad-hoc basis, was deprecated, in face of fact that the recruitment is made following the procedure for regular appointment. 11. Having considered the terms and conditions of the advertisement issued by the appellant Corporation and response to which the deceased employee offered his candidature for consideration for appointment as driver, and in consequence was accorded an appointment, leaves no doubt in any manner that the process was for regular appointment and this fact has been fairly admitted by the counsel for the appellant Corporation. Further, we cannot lose sight of the fact that India as a nation is faced with massive problem of unemployment and therefore, in such circumstances, the deceased employee accepted the offer of appointment, with whatever terms and conditions were incorporated by the appellant Corporation even one including to the effect that the offer of appointment was on 'contractual basis', though no such condition was incorporated either in the advertisement or under the rules. It is well settled law that once a person joins service under the Government the relationship between him and the Government is in the nature of status rather than contractual and the terms of his service while he is in employment are governed by statute or statutory rules. Hence, the learned Single Judge correctly concluded that merely inclusion of the term 'contract' would not deprive the claim of the petitioners' son from consideration of his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant Corporation placed reliance on the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in case of General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxmi Devi and others [ 2009 (7) SCC 205 ] : AIR 2009 SC 3121 , to fortify his submissions. Suffice it to say that in the case referred to and relied upon the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land examined the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 and decided the case on the facts of that case, repealing the claim of Daily Wagers, for appointment on compassionate grounds. The facts of the instant case at hand are the entirely different and therefore, the judgment referred to and relied upon, is clearly distinguishable on facts and is of no help in any manner to the appellant Corporation. 13. In the result, the intra-court appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the stay application also stands dismissed. Costs made easy.Appeal dismissed. *******