JUDGMENT : The petitioner has preferred by this writ petition making a following prayer : “i. by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of L.D.C. or any other appropriate post commensurate to the qualification of the petitioner under the Rules, 2002 with all consequential benefits; ii. by appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner as L.D.C. in Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project, Banswara in pursuance of application made by the petitioner and the petitioner may be appointed on the post of L.D.C. or any other post which is commensurate to the qualification of the petitioner on the ground of compassionate employment as per rules, 2002; iii. any other order, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner; and iv. Costs of this writ petition be allowed to the petitioner. 2. The facts as noticed by this Court in the petition are that the father of the petitioner died while in service on 30.09.2006. The petitioner applied for getting compassionate appointment under the provisions of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 on 10.06.2006 within 40 days of death of the petitioner’s father alongwith application form duly supported by the affidavit of the petitioner’s mother and sister. 3. The respondents did not consider the application dated 08.11.2006 on the ground that the petitioner would require a succession certificate which was accordingly obtained by the petitioner on 28.05.2013. The respondents, however, in spite of the succession certificate did not grant the compassionate appointment to the petitioner and therefore, petitioner preferred this writ petition. 4. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed a reply and stated that the petitioner is 39 years of age and hence, over age for the compassionate appointment. The respondents have also stated that there were two marriages of the petitioner’s father and since the divorce was granted in the first marriage and the petitioner is the son procreated out of the first marriage, therefore, being the family of the first wife he does not have any right after the divorce. The reply also objects to the succession certificate obtained by the petitioner on the ground that no objection has been taken from all the successors which would entitle the petitioner of compassionate appointment. The reply also objects to the succession certificate obtained by the petitioner on the ground that no objection has been taken from all the successors which would entitle the petitioner of compassionate appointment. During the course of argument the counsel for the respondents also furnished a order dated 03.07.2007, which was the government appointment order of the second wife, who is respondent No.4 in the present writ petition in widow quota. Counsel for the respondents argued that since only one family member was entitled in the Government service, therefore, petitioner shall be disentitled for seeking job under the Compassionate Appointment Rules. Counsel for the residents further argued that the legitimate intention of granting compassionate appointment is to tide over the immediate crisis of the family. 5. Counsel for the respondent also drew attention of the Court to Rule 5 of the Rules 1996 which permitted appointment only if there was no surviving Government Servant in the family. Counsel for the petitioner stated that his entitlement for the compassionate appointment happened on 30.09.2006 when the father of the petitioner died while in service. The role of the petitioner to claim such entitlement virtually came to an end on 06.11.2006, when he submitted a proper application for consideration for the compassionate appointment. Once the petitioner had submitted such application on 06.11.2006, the respondents were under the legal obligation to grant compassionate appointment in accordance with Rules, 1996. Any delay caused by the respondents for giving the compassionate appointment cannot be attributed to the petitioner as he had made his application well in time on 06.11.2006. Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the date of appointment of respondent No.4 was on 03.07.2007 whereas the entitlement of the petitioner was on 06.11.2006 and the petitioner cannot be penalised for in action on the part of the respondent. 6. Counsel for the petitioner reiterated that Government employment of a family member subsequent to the application preferred by him shall not disentitle him for the compassionate appointment. Counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of the Court towards the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank versus M. Mahesh Kumar AIR 2015 SC 2411 . 7. The relevant portion reads as follows : 12. Counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of the Court towards the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank versus M. Mahesh Kumar AIR 2015 SC 2411 . 7. The relevant portion reads as follows : 12. The same principle was reiterated by this Court in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India & Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 209 : 2011 AIR SCW 2039, wherein it was held as under :- "15. Now, it is well settled that compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to provide immediate relief to the employee's family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Appointment based solely on descent is inimical to our constitutional scheme, and ordinarily public employment must be strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No other mode of appointment is permissible. Nevertheless, the concept of compassionate appointment has been recognised as an exception to the general rule, carved out in the interest of justice, in certain exigencies, by way of a policy of an employer, which partakes the character of the service rules. That being so, it needs little emphasis that the scheme or the policy, as the case may be, is binding both on the employer and the employee. Being an exception, the scheme has to be strictly construed and confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve. 17. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 AIR SCW 2305, while emphasising that a compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of course or in posts above Classes III and IV, this Court had observed that: (SCC p. 140, para 2) "2....The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned.” ……. 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. 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 dependants of the deceased/incapacitated employee 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." 16. In Balbir Kaur & Anr. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 493 : AIR 2000 SC 1596 , while dealing with the application made by the widow for employment on compassionate ground applicable to the Steel Authority of India, contention raised was that since she is entitled to get the benefit under Family Benefit Scheme assuring monthly payment to the family of the deceased employee, the request for compassionate appointment cannot be acceded to. Rejecting that contention in paragraph (13), this Court held as under:- "13 But in our view this Family Benefit Scheme cannot in any way be equated with the benefit of compassionate appointments. The sudden jerk in the family by reason of the death of the bread earner can only be absorbed by some lump-sum amount being made available to the family-this is rather unfortunate but this is a reality. The feeling of security drops to zero on the death of the bread earner and insecurity thereafter reigns and it is at that juncture if some lump-sum amount is made available with a compassionate appointment, the grief-stricken family may find some solace to the mental agony and manage its affairs in the normal course of events. The feeling of security drops to zero on the death of the bread earner and insecurity thereafter reigns and it is at that juncture if some lump-sum amount is made available with a compassionate appointment, the grief-stricken family may find some solace to the mental agony and manage its affairs in the normal course of events. It is not that monetary benefit would be the replacement of the bread earner, but that would undoubtedly bring some solace to the situation." Referring to Steel Authority of India Ltd.'s case, High Court has rightly held that the grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance. The High Court also observed that it is not the case of the bank that the respondents' family is having any other income to negate their claim for appointment on compassionate ground. 17. Considering the scope of the Scheme `Dying in Harness Scheme 1993' then in force and the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court rightly directed the appellant-bank to reconsider the claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment in accordance with law and as per the Scheme (1993) then in existence. We do not find any reason warranting interference. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid discussions this court of the opinion that the petitioner became entitled for compassionate appointment on 06.11.2006 when he made an application pursuant to death of his father on 30.09.2006 while in service. The contention of the counsel for the department cannot be accepted because the petitioner was within age limit at that time when he applied for compassionate appointment and therefore, he cannot be deprived of his statutory right of gaining compassionate appointment. The appointment of respondent No.4 on 03.07.2007 would not have any impact upon the right of the petitioner as it was an independent Government appointment under widow quota and did not have any bearing upon the consideration under the Rules of 1996. Any appointment of a family member subsequent to the right existing for considerably time would not disentitle the family member for compassionate appointment under Rule 5 of the Rules 1996. Any appointment of a family member subsequent to the right existing for considerably time would not disentitle the family member for compassionate appointment under Rule 5 of the Rules 1996. The precedent law cited by the counsel for the petitioner makes in amply clear that compassionate appointment after long duration cannot be denied only on account of in action on the part of the respondents state to have positively considered the case of the concerned person where the statutory right arising out of Rules 1996 were to be implemented by the state shortly within reasonable time of application on 08.11.2006. 9. The argument of tiding over the immediate crisis cannot be applied in the present circumstances as the statutory right was very well existing and petitioner had not caused any delay in seeking the appointment and therefore, his right of compassionate appointment has to be protected. 10. It is strange that even the concept of it legitimate child is not acceptable in these times and it has been held by the Hob’ble Apex Court that all children whatsoever the status of the parents might be are legitimate and shall have legitimate rights whereas in this case admittedly the petitioner was a lawfully born child out of the lawful wedding. Therefore, it is inappropriate on the part of respondents to argue that with the end of the marriage the rights of the child shall be over. The demand of succession certificate by the respondents was also unnecessary and illegal impediment caused by the respondents in violation of the Rules of 1996 for compassionate appointment. There was absolutely no need for succession certificate in light of the fact that there was only one family member claiming the compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1996. The respondents were under a lawful and statutory obligation to grant immediate compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1996. 11. The writ petition is, accordingly allowed and the respondents are directed to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner on appropriate post as per his qualification. Such appointment shall be made within period of three months from furnishing the certified copy of this judgment.