JUDGMENT : Ajay Rastogi, J. 1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the dependent son of deceased employee of the Corporation who died in accident with the vehicle of the Corporation while in service. Although prior to introducing the Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Employees of RSRTC Regulations 2010, the Rules of compassionate appointment of State Govt. namely The Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 were applicable. 2. The Corporation under Clause 4(3) of Regulation 2010 disqualified the dependent of the deceased employee seeking compassionate appointment if he/she claims compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (MV Act) due to the vehicular death of the employee with the vehicle of the Corporation and if the dependent is interested for compassionate appointment one has to furnish undertaking that they will not file any claim application seeking compensation under the MV Act against the Corporation. 3. Brief facts of the case which can be culled out from the records are that the deceased employee & father of the petitioner, while serving as a Helper at the age of 35 years met with an accident with the vehicle of the Corporation on 26.7.2012 and died at the spot. 4. The dependents of the deceased employee including the present petitioner in all six filed a joint claim application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (MACT) Tonk u/S.166 read with Section 140 of the MV Act claiming compensation impleading the vehicle driver and the Corporation as defendants. At the same time, after fulfilment of the requirement as provided under the Scheme of Regulation 2010, the present petitioner who happens to be the eldest son of the deceased employee submitted application for compassionate appointment but that came to be rejected by the respondents vide order dated 25.2.2014 informing him that as they have already filed claim application against the Corporation that disentitles the dependent seeking compassionate appointment under Clause 4(3) of Regulation 2010. 5. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the restriction which has been imposed by the Corporation under Clause 4(3) of Regulation 2010 is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and in a case where the employee of the Corporation met with an accident with the vehicle other than the vehicle of the Corporation and died while in service he can certainly make an application to claim compensation under the MV Act and at the same time one of the dependent of the deceased employee if otherwise eligible can be considered seeking compassionate appointment under Regulation 2010 but in a case where the serving employee of the Corporation died due to accident with the vehicle of the Corporation he has to opt either to seek compassionate appointment under Regulation 2010 or to sue the Corporation claiming compensation under MV Act and two different standards examining eligibility for seeking compassionate appointment is wholly arbitrary and has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved and casualty never occur with the prior notice, the vehicle with which the employee is supposed to meet with the accident and so called artificial distinction made under Clause 4(3) of the Regulation 2010 is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 6. Counsel further submits that in the MV Act on account of vehicular death victim can claim compensation and if there is any Scheme of compassionate appointment, one of the defendant of the deceased employee can claim compassionate appointment under the relevant Scheme and it has no co-relation and such restriction which has been imposed under Regulation 4(3) of the Regulation 2010 is wholly irrational and deserves to be quashed. 7. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand while supporting Clause 4(3) of Regulation 2010 submits that dependent of the deceased employee while seeking compassionate appointment due to death of the employee with the vehicle of the Corporation he/she has to furnish an undertaking that he/she will not make any claim for compensation under the MV Act against the Corporation. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand while supporting Clause 4(3) of Regulation 2010 submits that dependent of the deceased employee while seeking compassionate appointment due to death of the employee with the vehicle of the Corporation he/she has to furnish an undertaking that he/she will not make any claim for compensation under the MV Act against the Corporation. In the instant case, the petitioner sued the Corporation by filing claim application and later got award of Rs.22,95,775/- The object to offer compassionate appointment to one of the dependent of the deceased employee is to provide immediate relief to the employee's family to win over the sudden financial crisis and to consider the dependent of the deceased employee seeking compassionate appointment but in the instant case, the family of the deceased employee received an award of Rs.22,95,775/- under MV Act, therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the vires of Reg.4(3) of the Regulations 2010 more so when the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 8. We have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material on record. 9. Prior to Scheme of Regulation 2010 came into force, compassionate appointments were made by the Corporation under the Scheme of the State Govt. namely The Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 which has been framed by the Govt. in exercise of power conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and there is no such restriction imposed under the Scheme of Rules 1996 and if the employee died while in service irrespective of the cause of death subject to fulfilment of conditions one of the dependent of deceased employee is eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment and can claim compensation as well under the MV Act. Regulation 4(3) with which we are presently concerned reads ad infra:- ^^fuxe dehZ dh fuxe okgu@M;wVh ij jgrs gq, nq?kZVuk esa e`R;q gksus ij e`rd deZpkjh ds okfjlku }kjk e`rd deZpkjh dh e`R;q ds dkj.k vk; dh {kfriwfrZ gsrq fuxe ds fo:} eksVj nq?kZVuk U;k;kf/kdj.k esa Dyse ds fy, okn nk;j fd;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa ;fn fuxe ls Dyse izkIr dj fy;k tkrk gS ;k Dyse dsl U;k;ky; esa yfEcr jgrk gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa e`rd deZpkjh ds vkfJr nq?kZVuk Dyse izkIr djus ds lkFk&lkFk fuxe esa vuqdEikRed fu;qfDr ds ik= ugha gksxs] fuxe dehZ ds nq?kZVuk esa e`R;q gksus ij ;fn mldk vkfJr fuxe esa vuqdEikRed fu;qfDr ds le; fu/kkZfjr izi= esa vkosnu izLrqr djrk gS rks vkfJr lnL;ksa dh vksj ls vkosnu i= ds lkFk 10 :i;s ds uku T;wfMf'kuy LVkEi ij bl vk'k; dk 'kiFk i= izLrqr djus gksaxs fd e`rd deZpkjh ds okfjlku }kjk fuxe ds fo:} fdlh Hkh l{ke U;k;ky; esa nq?kZVuk Dyse okn nk;j ugha fd;k tk;sxk ,oa Hkfo"; esa e`rd ds fdlh Hkh vkfJr }kjk fuxe ds fo:} ,eŒ,ŒlhŒVhŒ Dyse nk;j djus ij Hkh fu;kstd dks esjh lsok fcuk uksfVl fn;s lekIr djus ds fy, viuh lgefr nsrk@nsrh gWwA lsok lekIr ds fo:} fdlh Hkh U;k;ky; esa dsl nk;j ugha d:Wxk@d:WxhA** 10. Regulation 4(3) of Regulation 2010 disqualify the dependent of the deceased employee to seek compensationate appointment in case he/she has claimed compensation under the MV Act from the Corporation or his application is either pending claiming compensation or award has been passed by the MACT under the MV Act against the Corporation and the dependent while submitting application for compassionate appointment under the Regulation 2010 has to submit an affidavit on a non judicial stamp of Rs.10/- that he/she has not filed any claim application against the Corporation for the alleged accident with the vehicle of the Corporation. 11. In the instant case, the deceased employee while in service met with the accident with the vehicle of the Corporation on 26.7.2012 and died at the spot & for claiming compassionate appointment the dependent of the deceased employee has to furnish undertaking not to sue the Corporation claiming compensation under the MV Act & since he has neither submitted affidavit nor withdrew MACT claim pending before the MACT Tonk, his application seeking compassionate appointment was rejected by the Corporation vide order dated 25.2.2014 invoking Reg. 4(3) of Regulation 2010. 12. 4(3) of Regulation 2010. 12. The deceased employee was 35 years of age when he met with an accident with the vehicle of the Corporation and died while in service leaving behind his wife with five children and at the relevant point of time when his claim application was filed before the MACT the petitioner who is eldest son & one of the dependent of the deceased employee was 18 years of age and the rest were minor, the family lost their bread winner on account of untimely death of the employee who met with an accident with the vehicle of the Corporation. 13. The object of compassionate appointment undoubtedly is to mitigate hardship of the family of bread winner and appointment should therefore be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. 14. Undoubtedly in the instant case, the bread winner of the family died while in service and if he would have met with an accident with the vehicle other than the vehicle of the Corporation certainly the members of the family could claim compensation under the MV Act and at the same time one of the dependent of the deceased employee could be considered for compassionate appointment under the Regulation 2010 but to their dismay and unfortunate that since he met with an accident with the vehicle of the Corporation that disentitled the members of the family to claim compassionate appointment if they have sued the Corporation claiming compensation under the MV Act to which the member of the deceased employee has an independent statutory right to claim under the MV Act. 15. Compassionate appointment can be one of the conditions of service of an employee, if a scheme to that effect is framed by the employer. In case, the employee dies in harness i.e. while in service leaving behind the dependents, one of the dependents may request for compassionate appointment to maintain the family of the deceased employee dies in harness. This cannot be stated to be an advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death and has no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute i.e. MV Act occasioned on account of accidental death. Compassionate appointment may have nexus with the death of an employee while in service but it is not necessary that it should have a correlation with the accidental death. Compassionate appointment may have nexus with the death of an employee while in service but it is not necessary that it should have a correlation with the accidental death. An employee dies in harness even in normal course, due to illness and to maintain the family of the deceased one of the dependents may be entitled for compassionate appointment but that cannot be termed as "Pecuniary Advantage" that comes under the periphery of Motor Vehicles Act. 16. Reg. 4(3) of the Regulation 2010 is certainly discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution for the reason that if the employee of the Corporation met with an accident with the vehicle other than the vehicle of the Corporation the victim could claim compensation under the MV Act and one of the dependent could seek compassionate appointment under Regulation 2010 but if the employee of the Corporation met with an accident with the vehicle of the Corporation, family members/dependent of the employee has to submit option either to seek compassionate appointment or to sue the Corporation claiming compensation under the MV Act and such restriction under Regulation 2010 in our considered view has no nexus with the object to be achieved and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, claiming compensation in regard to death occurred in accident under the MV Act has no co relationship while seeking compassionate appointment under the relevant scheme of rules. 17. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds & is accordingly allowed & Reg.4(3) of Regulation 2010 is declared arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and deserves to be quashed and set aside and in consequence thereof the order passed by the Corporation rejecting application of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment dated 25.2.2014 is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider application of the petitioner provided he fulfils other conditions seeking compassionate appointment under Regulation 2010, appropriate orders be passed within a period of two months. No cost.