ORDER : 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following Reliefs : “A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent department are directed to consider the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground as considering her as dependent. B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent department are directed to provide her family pension as considering her as dependent. C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents department are directed to pay interest @ 9% per annum as no family pension is given till today. D. Any other appropriate writ order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Precisely, the facts of this case are that Shri Ramesh Chandra Purohit, who was initially appointed as Pump Driver in respondent-Department, expired while in service on 11.06.2003. The dependant/wife Smt. Santosh Devi Purohit was given compassionate appointment as Class-IV employee, as per the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Service Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1996’). Thereafter, Smt. Santosh Devi Purohit adopted the present petitioner through a registered adoption deed on 14.07.2005. However, Smt. Santosh Devi Purohit also expired on 04.04.2007. 3. After the death of Smt. Santosh Devi Purohit, the present petitioner moved an application on 26.08.2007 seeking compassionate appointment, within the time limit prescribed under the Rules of 1996. The petitioner, at that time, was 13 years of age. The respondents however did not give compassionate appointment to her on account of her being minor. The petitioner however submitted a representation before the respondent-Department on 13.01.2014, after attaining the age of 18 years. Upon non-redressal of the grievance raised in such representation, the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1172/2014 which was decided on 13.02.2014, and the following order was passed in the said writ petition : “Mr. Nand Kishore Mehta, counsel for the PHED is directed to accept notice. Copy may be supplied to him. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to provide appointment on compassionate ground because mother of petitioner Santosh Devi Purohit was employee of respondent department died while in service. Nand Kishore Mehta, counsel for the PHED is directed to accept notice. Copy may be supplied to him. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to provide appointment on compassionate ground because mother of petitioner Santosh Devi Purohit was employee of respondent department died while in service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of filling application in accordance with the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependent of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 the respondents are not deciding the application of petitioner for providing appointment on compassionate ground, therefore, direction may be issued to decide the application of the petitioner forthwith as per the rules of 1996 and release all the dues of late Santosh Devi Purohit. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner for providing appointment on compassionate ground as per Rules of 1996 so also grant the family pension and other benefits of late Smt. Santosh Purohit within a period of two months from the date of receiving certified copy of this order. It is made it clear that in the event of rejection of the petitioner’s claim, petitioner will be at liberty to file fresh writ petition.” 4. In light of such order, the respondents asked the petitioner to give all the details in respect of his claim for the compassionate appointment, and all the details were being furnished by her; but inspite of that, neither the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected nor such appointment was given. 5. The respondents continued to have correspondence amongst themselves and one of such correspondence is Annexure-9 dated 09.07.2014 and another is Annexure-10 dated 07.11.2017, whereby the documents for processing the case for compassionate appointment were called upon. On 06.02.2015, another letter was written by the respondents showing the defects in the application of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment. On 17.07.2015, again some defects were pointed out by the respondents for processing the case for family pension. Inspite of the same, the petitioner has neither been given the family pension, nor has been given compassionate appointment. Thus, the petitioner, after having waited for such a long period, has filed this writ petition. 6. On 17.07.2015, again some defects were pointed out by the respondents for processing the case for family pension. Inspite of the same, the petitioner has neither been given the family pension, nor has been given compassionate appointment. Thus, the petitioner, after having waited for such a long period, has filed this writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that both the mother and father of the petitioner have expired, and thus, being the only daughter, she was entitled to be given compassionate appointment. 7. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the application form was submitted well within time and the matter was taken up repeatedly by the respondents. It is also contended that this Hon’ble Court on earlier occasion, had already directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment and family pension. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that it is sorry state of affairs on the part of the respondents, where the dependent is being treated in such a shabby manner that neither the pension dues have been given to her even after a passage of about 11 years from the date of death of petitioner’s mother and nor her case for compassionate appointment is being considered. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in The Managing Director, Nagaur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Prashant Soni & Others. (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1136/2015, the relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder : “The main thrust of submission of counsel for the appellant is that the date on which the application was submitted by the respondent, a dependent member of deceased employee, i.e. 17.09.2008, he was underage and not eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment and under the scheme of Rules, one has to be of 18 years and the application is to be submitted within three months of the alleged death of the bread winner and accordingly, when he was underage on the date of submission of the application, no error was committed by the authority in rejecting his application while considering his case for compassionate appointment, as prayed for. Although, the ld.Single Judge rejected the contentions advanced under order impugned, but we do find no substance in the submissions made for the reason that one is supposed to be within the age, which is one of the condition of eligibility in seeking employment but that is one of the factor which is always to be kept in mind when someone is coming forward to seek public employment by adopting a due process and mechanism provided by law making selections from open market but in the instant case, no one is made aware in advance as to when their bread winner will lose to provide economic assistance to the family and these are incidents which happen untimely with the family and the Government has come with the object to do away with the conditions of eligibility and provide employment to the dependent member of the indigent family by providing them social protection. Indisputably, in the instant case, when the application came to be considered & rejected by the authority, the dependent member had attained the minimum age prescribed under the Rules but it appears that the authority stood back on the date of submission of the application and in our considered view, these are all technical issues only to deny legitimate right of the dependent member of the deceased employee who is otherwise eligible to seek compassionate appointment and in our considered view, on the crucial day when his application was considered by the authority, his eligibility to hold the post was to be considered and his application could not have been rejected on these technical grounds holding him ineligible because of underage on the date of submission of the application and this test is always to be looked into only when someone comes forward from open market and not while seeking compassionate appointment and this what the ld.Single Judge has considered at length in the order impugned dt.28.10.2015. After we have heard counsel for the parties, we find no error being committed by the ld.Single Judge in passing the order impugned which may call for our interference. The special appeal is wholly without substance, stands dismissed. After we have heard counsel for the parties, we find no error being committed by the ld.Single Judge in passing the order impugned which may call for our interference. The special appeal is wholly without substance, stands dismissed. However, we direct the concerned authorities to comply with the order passed by the ld.Single Judge dt.28.10.2015 and consider the case of the respondent-Prashant Soni for compassionate appointment for the post, he is eligible under the Rules within a period of one month from today. As a consequence whereof the misc. application stands disposed of.” 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that vide the aforequoted judgment, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has directed the compassionate appointment to be accorded to the petitioner therein, as he had moved an application in time and was otherwise eligible to be given compassionate appointment. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents have strongly refuted the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents have however, assured this Court that the appropriate family pension will be granted to the petitioner very shortly within a period of two months from today, but the compassionate appointment cannot be granted, as the same is for the purpose of bringing out the dependent of the family members from immediate shock on the death of the deceased government servant; however, in such prolonged matter, the compassionate appointment cannot be granted. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents have passed on a copy of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) whereby the questions have been framed that whether the compassionate appointment can be kept on hold during the time of the only dependent becoming minor. The answer given in FAQs is that the compassionate appointment cannot wait for the dependent to become major, and unless the dependent is within the age limit on that particular date, when she is filing her application form, the petitioner cannot be given compassionate appointment. 14. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties as well as perusing the record of the case alongwith precedent law cited at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that the aforementioned FAQs passed on by learned counsel for the respondents do not inspire confidence as neither it is a notification nor it is a rule and regulation and it does not carry any sanctity of law. This Court further finds that the Rules do not debar any candidate from being given appointment on account of his/her being minor at the time of filling the application form. 15. The Rules merely stipulates that the application form has to be filled well within time, which is not disputed by the respondents, as the appropriate application form was submitted in time. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is the sole dependent of the deceased lady Smt. Santosh Devi Purohit who died on 04.04.2007. This Court also finds that the precedent law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner absolutely applies in the present case. 16. In the wake of above backdrop, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner as per her eligibility and qualification with prospective effect and grant appropriate family pension to the petitioner within a period of 90 days from today.