JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition was filed by the petitioner, Mrs. Deepa Agrawal, way back in the year 2010 assailing the order dated 15.04.2010 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Alwar whereby her application seeking appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. According to the petitioner, she is legally waded wife of Dharampal Meghwal, who was employed with the respondents as Constable bearing No. 1776. While he was posted at MIA Police Station, Alwar, he died on 25.01.2010. He by then had completed services of 15 years. According to the petitioner, their marriage was solemnized as per hindu customs and rites on 06.05.2004. Two sons namely Purav Verma and Bhavya Verma were born out of their wedlock on 16.06.2005 and 12.12.2007 respectively. 2. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment under the Rajasthan Employment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996). The petitioner has placed on record birth certificates of her two children wherein name of Shri Dharampal Singh has been shown as their father. It is contended that the petitioner is graduate and she is eligible for appointment on the post of L.D.C. under the Rules of 1996. The Superintendent of Police, Alwar vide order dated 15.04.2010 rejected her application seeking appointment on compassionate ground on the premise that her name is not entered as wife of the deceased in the service record of the deceased employee. The petitioner has contended that she is in dire need of compassionate appointment as she is having responsibility of maintaining two children. It is difficult for her to meet both ends of the day. She has been taking tuition for bringing up of her children. The Superintendent of Police, Alwar has relied on the service record of the deceased employee whereas the service book which is being maintained by the department in the Proforma GA-36, has no column with regard to wife. 3. The petitioner, who is present in person, has submitted that she has voluminous records to prove that she is legally waded wife of the deceased; therefore, non-registration of marriage cannot be a reason for not treating her as legally weded wife of the deceased. Apart from birth certificates of her children, she has referred to Voters Identity Card issued by Election Commission of India wherein deceased has been shown her husband. Apart from birth certificates of her children, she has referred to Voters Identity Card issued by Election Commission of India wherein deceased has been shown her husband. She also relied on the school record of two children. The petitioner in the course of arguments produced such school record as also hospital record in which she has been shown as wife of the deceased. She has also produced for perusal of the Court copy of the Ration Card and the communication dated 16.03.2013 addressed to her by Central Public Information Officer-cum-Assistant General Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur informing her that deceased Dharampal in his Account No. 61008275984 had made her nominee. The petitioner has also produced the copy of the postmortem report wherein her name has been shown as his wife. The petitioner has also produced number of photographs showing the petitioner, deceased Dharampal and their family members together, which have been returned to her. 4. It is contended that the respondents in reply to writ petition have cited one additional reason for not granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner, which is that the deceased on 03.03.1995 filled DCRG form in which he nominated Smt. Anjana Devi then aged about 18 years as his wife, which was witnessed by Shri Narendra Pandey, Constable No. 345 and Shri Ranveer Singh, Constable No. 1132 and verified by the then Superintendent of Police, Alwar and thereafter, no application for change of the nominee was filed by the deceased employee. The petitioner has filed application for succession certificate in which her mother-in-law is also impleaded a party, but that dispute therein is confined to the claim of terminal dues of the deceased employee such as gratuity, provident fund, leave encashment, family pension etc. The dispute regarding appointment on compassionate ground has to be decided as per Rajasthan Employment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1996. 5. Mr. Sukhveer Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.O.(S), Alwar, Officer-ln-Charge appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that ever since Smt. Anjana Devi was nominated by deceased Dharampal in the DCRG form, no subsequent application was made by him during his life time for change of such nomination and therefore, respondents have to proceed on the footing that Smt. Anjana Devi is the wife of the deceased. In fact, Jaswant Meghwal, younger brother of the deceased Dharampal made a complaint alleging that his brother Dharampal was found dead in mysterious circumstances and he made such allegations against none other than the petitioner and one Kamal Sen. In that First Information Report ultimately negative final report was filed by the police. Thereafter, Rameshwar Dayal and Smt. Tara Devi submitted an application to the Superintendent of Police, Alwar on 29.04.2010 for appointment of younger brother of the deceased Jaswant on compassionate ground. Smt. Tara Devi was also nominated for the provident fund of the deceased. She claimed payment of provident fund, insurance and the gratuity on 21.05.2010. The petitioner in between filed an injunction suit against the parents of the deceased in which injunction order was passed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner also filed an application for succession certificate before the Court of District Judge, Alwar. Unless all these disputes are settled, the petitioner cannot be acknowledged as the wife of the deceased Dharampal. 6. The petitioner has rejoined and submitted that her in-laws were not happy with their marriage, as she belongs to a different caste and that they never accepted the marriage. It was therefore that when her husband died, his younger brother Jaswant lodged false FIR implicating the petitioner. She had to under those unfortunate circumstances, to remain in jail for quite some time, but the police found nothing against the petitioner and submitted a negative final report which was accepted by the concerned Court. The petitioner had suffered on all counts and continues to suffer now. She contends that there is no person by the name of Smt. Anjana Devi. No one has come forward to claim either the compassionate appointment, nor the terminal dues of the deceased or the family pension. 7. Upon hearing the rival submissions and perusing the material on record, I find that although the fact is that deceased Dharampal had for the purpose of gratuity nominated Smt. Anjana Devi, but at the same time the petitioner has been able to show that when her marriage was performed with Dharampal, he nominated the petitioner in his bank account as nominee. Besides, the petitioner has also produced Voters Identity Card in which she has been shown wife of the deceased. Besides, the petitioner has also produced Voters Identity Card in which she has been shown wife of the deceased. She has also produced Ration Card in which she has been shown as the wife of the deceased and her two sons have been shown as his sons and Dharampal has been shown as head of the family. The birth certificates of both the sons of the deceased indicate name of Dharampal as their father. Besides, birth certificate of first son on 16.06.2005 issued by Medical Officer, In Charge of Shri Govinddev Ji Maharaj, Chikitsa and Swasthya Sansthan, Scheme No. 8, Alwar(Raj.) indicates Dharampal as his husband. Birth certificate of her second child issued by the same hospital on 12.12.2007 indicates name of Dharampal as his husband. Subsequently issued ration card by District Supply Officer dated 10.06.2010 after the death of Dharampal has indicated name of Dharampal as her husband. The petitioner has also produced Photostat copy of the affidavit which was submitted by deceased Dharampal at the time of applying for ration card in which he has acknowledged the petitioner as his wife and Purab and Bhavya as their sons. The petitioner has also produced progress report cards of Purab and Bhvya issued by the concerned school, i.e. Our Mothers Pet Kinder Garten & School at Alwar. She has also produced copy of the postmortem report dated 25.01.2010 of the deceased Dharampal in which she has identified his dead body and she has been referred as his wife. It is although an unfortunate situation that the brother of the deceased filed an F.I.R. suspecting the petitioner behind his death in mysterious circumstances, but the fact is also that eventually the police was not able to substantiate any allegation/charge against her and they filed negative final report which was accepted by the concerned court. After investigation if the petitioner has been given a clean chit by the Court, there is no reason to treat her case differently than any other widow of a deceased Government servant. 8. Coming to the dispute between the petitioner and her mother-in-law, who both claim the terminal dues of the deceased such as gratuity, leave encashment, proficient fund, family pension etc., those issues are pending before the concerned courts, therefore, this Court need not comment thereupon. 9. 8. Coming to the dispute between the petitioner and her mother-in-law, who both claim the terminal dues of the deceased such as gratuity, leave encashment, proficient fund, family pension etc., those issues are pending before the concerned courts, therefore, this Court need not comment thereupon. 9. Only question that remains is that whether the petitioner be considered as legally weded wife of the deceased Dharampal or whether the nomination of Smt. Anjana Devi by the deceased in DCRG Form after his joining service on 03.03.1995 can be reason for not accepting petitioners such claim. The respondents have not asserted that Smt. Anjana Devi has come forward to claim either any of the terminal dues of the deceased or the compassionate appointment or even the family pension. It could be as the respondents themselves have indicated in page no. 1 of their reply that Smt Anjana Devi was only aged about 18 years when on 03.03.1995 such nomination was made. It could be a case of child marriage which might not have been acted upon later on and this can be the reason that Smt. Anjana Devi not coming forward to any of those benefits. Although, the petitioner claims that there is no such person by the name of Smt. Anjana Devi, but even if it is not accepted, emerging facts show that it was a case of child marriage. 10. Even otherwise, there is presumption about paternity of two children of which the petitioner is mother. In this connection reference can be made to Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Since, it is established that the petitioner and the deceased had been living together as husband and wife and that two children were born out of their union and that those children are known as the sons of deceased Dharampal, petitioners claim is any time stronger than that of the younger brother of the deceased. This is because the definition of dependent as given under Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 does not include brother as one of the dependents whereas it includes spouse as the dependent. The fact that the marriage of the petitioner was not registered cannot be a reason to ignore the claim of the petitioner. This is because the definition of dependent as given under Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 does not include brother as one of the dependents whereas it includes spouse as the dependent. The fact that the marriage of the petitioner was not registered cannot be a reason to ignore the claim of the petitioner. Irresistible conclusion thus is that the respondents cannot legally withhold right of consideration of the petitioner for compassionate appointment only because of two factors namely-that Smt. Anjana Devi was nominated by the deceased as his wife 15 years before his death and that his mother Tara Devi is claiming appointment on compassionate ground for deceaseds younger brother. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 15.04.2010 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of LDC in view of her qualification and pass appropriate order thereabout within two months from the date copy of this order is produced before them.Writ Petition Allowed. *******