JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs: "A. Immediately provide appointment on the post of Constable in respondent department under the Rules of 1996. B. The Hon'ble Court further may please to quash and set aside the impugned order Annex.P/9 dated 15.10.2015 along with irrelavant conditions put in letter dated 10.2.2015 in Annex.P/8. C. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner. D. Exemplary cost may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner." 2. The brief facts as noticed by this Court are that the petitioner's father was serving on the post of Constable in 'B' Company of 10th Battalion RAC (IR) Bikaner and died while in service on 13.03.1996, during his posting at Company Headquarter Kalam, District Nalbari, Assam. Due to the financial hardship, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in the year 2013. The respondents contemplated such compassionate appointment vide DGP letter dated 19.12.2013 (Annexure-P/1), Commandant Letter dated 02.01.2014 (Annexure P/2), Commandant Letter dated 08.05.2014 (Annexure P/3), DGP Letter dated 22.08.2014 (Annexure P/4), Commandant Letter dated 12.09.2014 (Annexure P/5) & DGP Letter dated 24.09.2014 (Annexure P/6). The respondents thereafter, took a final decision by the approval of the State Government to condone the delay in the application and finally gave directions for providing appointment to the petitioner vide Government order dated 23.12.2014 which is Annexure-P/7, which reproduced as follows: 3. The concerned authority further consequentially directed the Superintendent of Police, Tonk for issuance of appointment order in favour of the petitioner vide letter dated 10.02.2015 Annexure-P/8. Since the compliance of the order Annexure P/7 & P/8 took some time, the respondents rejected the compassionate appointment on the ground of Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996'), whereby if, a family member of the person seeking appointment is already in government service then he shall not be entitled for such compassionate appointment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the provisions of the Rule of 1996, particularly Rule 5, which reads as under: "5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the provisions of the Rule of 1996, particularly Rule 5, which reads as under: "5. Appointment subject to certain conditions:- When a Government servant dies while in service one of his/her dependants may be considered for appointment in Government Service subject to the condition that employment under these rules shall not be admissible in case where the spouse or at least one of the sons, unmarried daughters, adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter of the deceased Government Servant is already employed on regular basis under the Central/any State Government or Statutory Board, Organization/Corporation owned or controlled by wholly or partially by the Central/ any State Government at the time of death of the Government Servant." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus, stated that the condition of another dependant being in government employment was to be seen at the time of death of government servant and admittedly, at the time of death of the petitioner's father on 13.03.1996, none of the members of the family were in appointment. It is also submitted that subsequently, in the year 2011, a family member of the petitioner came to be appointed in Indian Army. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has denied the submissions on the ground that the rejection is in accordance with the Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 as amended vide notification dated 08.04.2015 for which a circular has been issued on 31.05.2016. The circular reads as follows: 7. As per learned counsel for the respondents, the date of appointment of the family member causing an exception to the compassionate appointment in Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 is attracted in the present matter and admittedly, the another dependant of the same family was recruited in Indian Army in the year 2011 and thus, the disqualification of the compassionate appointment under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996, vide Annexure-9, is justified. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of P. Mahendran and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors , (1990) AIR SC 405. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: "It is well settled rule of construction that every statute or statutory Rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors , (1990) AIR SC 405. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: "It is well settled rule of construction that every statute or statutory Rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the statute or in the Rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the Rule must be held to be prospective. If a Rule is expressed in language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be constructed as prospective only. In the absence of any express provision or necessary intendment the rule cannot be given retrospective effect except in matter of procedure. The amending Rule of 1987 does not contain any express provision giving the amendment retrospective effect nor there is anything therein showing the necessary intendment for enforcing the Rule with retrospective effect. Since the amending Rule was not retrospective, it could not adversely affect the right of those candidates who were qualified for selection and appointment on the date they applied for the post, moreover as the process of selection had already commenced when the amending Rules came into force. The amendment Rule could not affect the existing rights of those candidates who were being considered for selection as they possessed the requisite qualifications prescribed by the Rules before its amendment moreover construction of amending Rules should be made in a reasonable manner to avoid unnecessary hardship to those who have no control over the subject matter." 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 uptil 08.04.2015 required the disqualification to compassionate appointment on account of the event of dependant coming into government service to have taken place or before the time of death of the deceased government servant. 10. Admittedly, in the present case, the death of the petitioner's father had occurred on 13.03.1996 whereas the appointment of one of the dependants has happened only in the year 2011. 10. Admittedly, in the present case, the death of the petitioner's father had occurred on 13.03.1996 whereas the appointment of one of the dependants has happened only in the year 2011. As per the then existing Rule when the appointment order was passed vide Annexure P/7 dated 23.12.2014 and subsequent order dated 10.02.2015, the existing rule did not disqualify the petitioner as the Rule 5 at that time required the other dependant to be in service at the time of death of the deceased for the purpose of disqualification. 11. This Court is also of the view that the amendment disqualifying the petitioner has occurred on 08.04.2015 whereas the order of compassionate appointment had already been passed by the respondents on 23.12.2014. There is no doubt that the legislature has power to retrospectively apply the law, but for this, the same has to be mentioned by the legislature in the law itself that the application shall be retrospective, without such retrospective applicability clarified in the legislative intention, it is not appropriate to give any kind of retrospective application to the notification dated 8.04.2015. Thus, as per the existing law on 23.12.2014, the petitioner was entitled to be given compassionate appointment. 12. In this view of the matter, the present petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. The compassionate appointment shall be prospective for all purposes while giving effect to the order dated 23.12.2014.