JUDGMENT 1. - ReportableBy this writ petition a direction is sought for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's husband Sudesh Kumar Sharma died on 29.10.2001 while in service. An application was made by the petitioner's son for appointment. It was exceeded to as appointment was given to him vide order dated 11.06.2002 being the dependent of deceased employee. The petitioner's son then continued in service for a period of 12 years. He unfortunately died on 21.09.2014. On sudden death of son, the family came in financial crisis as no earning member exists. An application was made for grant of compassionate appointment either against the death of son or the death of erstwhile Government servant Sudesh Kumar Sharma. 3. The respondents have denied the appointment vide order dated 30.07.2015. It is precisely in reference to Rule 2 (c) of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (for short the "Rules of 1996"). The denial was in ignorance of the fact that no bar for second appointment on compassionate ground exist. 4. A reference of the judgment of this court in the case of Niraj Gurjar & Anr. v. State of Raj. & Ors. decided by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7678/2011 vide judgment dated 12.12.2013 has been given. There the interpretation to the definition of "dependent" was given. The younger brother was taken to be dependent of the erstwhile Government servant by taking liberally interpretation. 5. In the light of the aforesaid, the mother may be taken as dependent on her son and accordingly a direction to be given to the respondents to appoint her on the appropriate post as per the Rules of 1996. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that after the death of Mr. Sudesh Kumar Sharma on 29.10.2001, his son was given appointment on compassionate ground vide order dated 11.06.2002. He worked with the respondents for 12 years or so and unfortunately died in an accident. 7. The question for my consideration is as to whether second appointment on the compassionate ground would be permissible. The other issue is as to whether mother can be taken as dependent of the son for grant of compassionate appointment. He worked with the respondents for 12 years or so and unfortunately died in an accident. 7. The question for my consideration is as to whether second appointment on the compassionate ground would be permissible. The other issue is as to whether mother can be taken as dependent of the son for grant of compassionate appointment. For consideration of the aforesaid issue, it would be relevant to refer definition of dependent given under Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 which is quoted thus: "2(c).- "Dependent" means, a spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life time and who were wholly dependent on the deceased Government servant at the time of his/her death." 8. The perusal of the definition reveals as to who would be dependent of the erstwhile Government servant. It can be spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, adopted son/daughter, unmarried daughter legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life time and who were wholly dependent upon the deceased Government servant at the time of his/her death. 9. In the definition, two conditions exists. One is that the claimant should fall in any of the relations mentioned therein and he/she should be wholly dependent on the deceased Government servant at the time of his/her death. If any of the relations mentioned in the rules was not wholly dependent on the deceased Government servant at the time of death, he/she would not be entitled to the compassionate appointment even though he/she falls in one of the relations mentioned in the definition. 10. Thus, both the conditions are required to be satisfied by the claimant for seeking compassionate appointment. If definition intend to include all those who were wholly dependent on the deceased at the time of death then there was no reason to make a mention about specific relations therein. To fall in the definition of dependent, one should not only be in relation mentioned therein but wholly dependent at the time of death. 11. In the instant case, if the claim of the petitioner is considered on death of her son, she is not falling in any of the relations given in the definition of dependent. In absence of it, she would not be entitled for the compassionate appointment as it goes contrary to the definition of dependent given under the rules of 1996. In the instant case, if the claim of the petitioner is considered on death of her son, she is not falling in any of the relations given in the definition of dependent. In absence of it, she would not be entitled for the compassionate appointment as it goes contrary to the definition of dependent given under the rules of 1996. The reference of the judgment given by the Division Bench in the case Sumer Kanwar (Smt) v. State of Raj. & Ors., reported in RLW 2012(3) Raj. 2546 would be relevant. Therein similar issue was decided. Para 4 to 7 of that judgment are quoted hereunder: "4. In our considered opinion, it is not for the Courts to expand the definition of the dependent. It is matter of policy. The dependents are defined to be spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter, legally adopted by the deceased Government servant. Married daughter cannot be said to be dependent on the deceased employee. The definition of dependent is with a view to give appointment to spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, widow, etc. who are real dependents of the deceased. Such matters are within the purview of the policy of the State Government. It is for the State Government to define such matters and it is not for the Court to widen the scope of the Rules as compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The definition in Rule 2(c) cannot be said to be unconstitutional and arbitrary in any manner. Exclusion of married daughter from the purview of dependents is appropriate. She is not dependent on premarital family. It is trite law that Courts cannot enlarge scope of such policy/rules. It is not for the Court to rewrite the policy/rules. The provision of Rule 2(c) cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary in any manner. 5. No compassionate appointment can be ordered dehors of scheme as held in Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 209 . The Apex Court has laid down mind: 20. Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind: (i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. (2011) 4 SCC 209 . The Apex Court has laid down mind: 20. Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind: (i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. (ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. (iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the breadwinner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/incapacitated employee's family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be. (iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependents of the deceased/incapacitated employee viz. parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts. 6. Compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment. It is an exception to the general rule as laid down in State Bank of India & Anr. v. Raj Kumar (2010) 11 SCC 661 : 2010 (3) RLW 2343 (SC). Compassionate appointment being an exception has to be confined to policy. The Apex Court in State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar (supra) has laid down thus: 8. It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. The dependents of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The dependents of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. An appointment under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished/withdrawn. It follows therefore that when a scheme is abolished, any pending application seeking appointment under the scheme will also cease to exist, unless saved. The mere fact that an application was made when the scheme was in force, will not by itself create a right in favour of the applicant. 13. Further, where the earlier scheme is abolished and the new scheme which replaces it specifically provides that all pending applications will be considered only in terms of the new scheme, then the new scheme alone will apply. As compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right, the employer may wind up the scheme or modify the scheme at any time depending upon its policies, financial capacity and availability of posts. 7. Compassionate appointment can be granted under the scheme. It cannot be granted to grandson of cousin of employee as held in National Institute of Technology & Ors. v. Niraj Kumar Singh (2007) 2 SCC 481 . The Apex Court has laid down thus: 21. The appointment on compassionate ground, thus, could have been offered only to a person who was the widow of the deceased or a dependent child. Admittedly, the son of the deceased, Ashutosh Kumar was only one year old at the time of his father's death. He could not, thus, have been given any appointment on compassionate ground. It may be true that Smt. Vidhya Devi filed an application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground in favour of the respondent. But, it now stands admitted that he was not the natural grandson of late Shri B.P. Sinha but was a grandson of his cousin brother. Therefore, he was not entitled for appointment in terms of the scheme of the Institute. The Institute, therefore, committed illegality in granting him such an appointment. But, it now stands admitted that he was not the natural grandson of late Shri B.P. Sinha but was a grandson of his cousin brother. Therefore, he was not entitled for appointment in terms of the scheme of the Institute. The Institute, therefore, committed illegality in granting him such an appointment. Moreover, the purported appointment on compassionate ground had been given in 2001 i.e. after more than 15 years from the date of death of the said Shri B.P. Sinha." 12. If the claim is made against the death of the husband Sudesh Kumar Sharma, then the petitioner is falling in the definition of dependent but appointment after the death of Sudesh Kumar Sharma was given to his son. Once the compassionate appointment is given after the death, the right get exhausted. The appointment cannot be claimed in perpetuation one after another. No provision exists in the rule of 1996 to allow such appointment. If the appointment in the aforesaid manner is allowed, it would go against the very object of the rules itself. 13. In the instant case, the dependent was given compassionate appointment and he died after 12 years. In a given case, if dependent dies after rendering services for more than 25, 30 or 35 years or just before his retirement, the claim cannot be made for second appointment on compassionate ground. If it is allowed then would frustrate the purpose of compassionate appointment. It is otherwise going to violate Rule 10(3) 1996 of the Rules of 1996 which provides limitation for making application for appointment. The limitation has to be computed from the death of deceased employee. In the instant case Sudesh Kumar died on 29.10.2001 and if another application is permitted against it, would be barred by the statutory provisions as rule 10(3) provides limitation. This court should not pass order against the statutory provisions. 14. The application on the death of son is also not maintainable as mother does not fall in the definition of dependent. It would not be out of place to mention that the compassionate appointment is otherwise taken to be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 15. The issue aforesaid was considered by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of LIC v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar (1994) 2 SCC 718 . 16. It would not be out of place to mention that the compassionate appointment is otherwise taken to be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 15. The issue aforesaid was considered by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of LIC v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar (1994) 2 SCC 718 . 16. Considering the facts aforesaid I do not find that the petitioner is entitled for the compassionate appointment either on the death of her son on 21.09.2014 or on account of death of her husband in the year 2001. In the light of discussion made above, I find no merit in the present writ petition. 17. The judgment in the case of Neeraj Gurjar (supra) was given on its own facts. Therein Rule 10 of the Rules of 1996 was not brought to the notice of the court. The second application would be barred by limitation and is not otherwise provided. Rule 10 of the Rules of 1996 is quoted hereunder: "10. Procedure- (1)............ (2).......... (3) Such application shall be made to the Head of the office/Department in the proforma attached as Annexure-A to these rules, within a period of 90 days from the date of death of the Government Servant. The applicant shall submit an affidavit in support of monthly income (from all sources) of all the family members mentioned in Column No. 7 of Part-I of the application. Provided that in an exceptional case where the State Government in the Department of Personnel is satisfied that the operation of provisions of this sub-rule causes finacial hardship to the family of the deceased Government servant and considers it necessary or expedient to relax the provisions of this sub-rule in a particular case, it may relax the provisions of this sub-rule to such extent and subject to such conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner." 18. The perusal of the rule shows that application for appointment need to be preferred within time period given therein. If the period aforesaid is applied than Sudesh Kumar died on 29.10.2001, hence application would not be maintainable now. The aforesaid aspect was not brought to the notice of the court in the case of Neeraj Gurjar (supra). 19. The writ petition is found to be devoid of merit thus it is dismissed. This disposes the stay application also. *******