JUDGMENT : To question correctness of the judgment dated October 01, 2012 passed by learned Single Bench, this appeal is preferred. By the order impugned, learned Single Bench, while accepting the writ petition preferred by the respondent/petitioner, directed the appellants/respondents to provide appointment to the respondent/petitioner on compassionate grounds as per provisions of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996'). 2. In brief factual matrix of the case is that Shri Ratna Ram, father of the respondent/petitioner, died on 30th May, 1998 while in service of the appellant Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act. After death of Shri Ratna Ram, no member of his family claimed appointment on compassionate grounds as per the Rules of 1996. Suffice to mention that the Rules of 1996 were framed by the Governor of Rajasthan exercising the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The appellant company adapted the Rules aforesaid to regulate compassionate grounds for its employees. 3. The appellant company under its office order dated July 6, 2004 published the decision taken by the Board of Directors on 23rd June, 2004 pertaining to consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds to the eldest son/unmarried daughter, who do not attain the age of 18 years at the time of death of the employee concerned. After publication of the decision aforesaid, the petitioner on 07/12/2009 submitted an application to have appointment on compassionate grounds being a ward of late Shri Ratna Ram. The appellant company under a letter dated 10th August, 2010 rejected the claim made by the respondent/petitioner being made beyond the limitation prescribed to have appointment on compassionate grounds. To challenge the decision aforesaid, the respondent/petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with assertion that denial of appointment on compassionate grounds was erroneous in view of the fact that he could have applied for appointment only on attaining the majority. The appellants/respondents, while contesting the claim, preferred a reply to the writ petition with a specific stand that no application was submitted by the respondent/petitioner or his mother to protect their right, if any, for having appointment on compassionate grounds after attaining the age of 18 years. The appellants/respondents, while contesting the claim, preferred a reply to the writ petition with a specific stand that no application was submitted by the respondent/petitioner or his mother to protect their right, if any, for having appointment on compassionate grounds after attaining the age of 18 years. It was also stated that the respondent/petitioner and his family were not at all in need of employment due to loss of sole bread earner, otherwise his elder sister Ms. Jyoti would have made a request for appointment on compassionate grounds immediately after attaining majority. 4. Learned Single or his mother did not care to apply for appointment on compassionate grounds till 7th December, 2009. It is reiterated that the respondent/petitioner was not at all in need of a Bench, after considering facts of the case, arrived at the conclusion that in light of the decision taken by the Board of Directors of the employer company on July 6, 2004, appointment could have been given to the respondent/petitioner on compassionate grounds. While arriving at such finding, it was also observed that "in democracy, once conscious decision is taken for the welfare of the family of the employee by the Government and respondent Nigam, then, normally petty technicalities should not be allowed to come in way. Further, the appointment on compassionate ground is not a right but under a beneficial legislation it is provided for the welfare of the family of the employee who died leaving behind his family in financial lurch". Learned Single Judge also observed that it was the basic requirement and expectation from the employer to inform the effected family about the decision taken on 6th July, 2004. In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant company is that Shri Ratna Ram died while in service on 30th May, 1998. No application as per the Rules of 1996 was submitted by his widow to have appointment for herself on compassionate grounds or to protect rights, if any, pertaining to his children including the present respondent/petitioner. According to learned counsel even after having the decision on July 6, 2004, the respondent/petitioner was not at all in need of any appointment on compassionate grounds to meet the harness as that is apparent from the fact that his elder sister Ms. Jyoti never applied to have such appointment. 5. According to learned counsel even after having the decision on July 6, 2004, the respondent/petitioner was not at all in need of any appointment on compassionate grounds to meet the harness as that is apparent from the fact that his elder sister Ms. Jyoti never applied to have such appointment. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/petitioner argued that respondent/petitioner had occasion to apply for appointment on compassionate grounds only on attaining the age of 18 years, which he completed on 9th August, 2008. It is further submitted that under the Rules of 1996 as adapted by the appellant company, the petitioner being a ward of deceased employee is having a right to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds and that was denied on a technical plea. It is asserted that learned Single Bench just to meet the ends of justice and to settle the equities interpreted the decision taken by the Board of Directors of the employer company on 6th July, 2004 in benevolent manner and that is as per need of the facts available. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. At the threshold, we would like to state that a public employment is a public property and that can be given only as per the Rules applicable. The appointments on compassionate grounds are deviation from the principle of equality just to meet peculiar circumstances arising as a consequence to the death of a sole bread earner. The purpose for such appointment is to extend a helping hand to meet the harness suffered due to sudden death of the person supporting the entire family. In normal course, such harness, beyond its emotional aspect, remains in currency for a limited period, as such, the appointments on compassionate grounds, which is a deviation from general principle, is not required to be protected for an indefinite period. Under the Rules of 1996, a person could have applied for appointment during a period of 90 days from the date of death of the employee concerned. So far as the rights of a minor are concerned that too could have been protected by submitting an application to that effect within the period aforesaid. In the case in hand, no such effort at all was made by the widow of late Shri Ratna Ram or any other person competent to do so. So far as the rights of a minor are concerned that too could have been protected by submitting an application to that effect within the period aforesaid. In the case in hand, no such effort at all was made by the widow of late Shri Ratna Ram or any other person competent to do so. A decision under the letter dated July 6, 2004 was taken to extend the benefit of getting appointment on compassionate grounds to the wards of deceased government servant on attaining the majority, but, admittedly the respondent/petitioner did not submit any application immediately on completing the age of 18 years. He submitted application for appointment after a lapse of 16 months from 6th July, 2004. An important aspect of the matter is that the respondent/petitioner did not disclose prior to the year 2009 about the fact that he is having an elder sister, who attained the age of majority in the year 2006 itself. This fact clearly establishes that the respondent/petitioner was not claiming the appointment due to the harness suffered, but just to have employment by considering the compassionate appointments as a right. Looking to this factual and legal background, we do not find any just reason to maintain the directions given by learned Single Bench to accord appointment to the respondent/petitioner on compassionate grounds. The observation made by learned Single Bench about wider interpretation of the decisions taken by the appellant company on 6th July, 2004, we would like to state that the decision taken is quite specific and that convey only one meaning, as such that is to be applied with its literal meaning only. 8. In view of whatever stated above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment impugned dated 1st October, 2012 passed by learned Single Bench is set aside. The writ petition preferred by the respondent/petitioner is dismissed.