JUDGMENT Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - The petitioner by way of this writ petition has raised two-fold grievances. The first aspect raised by the petitioner is that she has been denied compassionate appointment by the Devasthan Department on the premise that there is no provision under the Rules which governs service conditions of her father for compassionate appointment. 2. The second aspect raised by the petitioner is with regard to regularise her on the post of Nidhi Prabandhak on which she is admittedly working on contract basis since 2004. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as regards compassionate appointment, the State Government has framed separate set of rules for the dependents of the deceased under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (in short "the Rules of 1996"). As per the said Rules, the deceased government servant has been defined as a person, who is employed in connection with the affairs of the State and whose salary is being payable from the consolidated fund and who has expired during service period. The dependent has been defined under Section 2(c) to mean wife or husband, son unmarried daughter, widowed daughter and also include the adopted son or adopted unmarried daughter. 4. In the reply filed by the respondents, it has been stated that father of the petitioner - Late Shri Krishna Murari Sharma was governed by the service rules relating to Staff of Self Supporting (Funded) Court of Wards Temples under the Control and Superintendence of Devasthan Department, Rajasthan, 1959 as there was no provision under those rules regarding appointment on compassionate ground. The application of the petitioner was rejected and she was appointed on contract basis. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that as the petitioner was working on contract basis since 2004, there is no reason to regularize her services and relies on law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 . 6. Learned counsel further submits that Rules of 1996 would not have any application to the employees who have been appointed under the Rules of 1959 and therefore, there is no occasion to extend compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 7. I have considered the submissions. 8. Vs. Umadevi (3) & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 . 6. Learned counsel further submits that Rules of 1996 would not have any application to the employees who have been appointed under the Rules of 1959 and therefore, there is no occasion to extend compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 7. I have considered the submissions. 8. The service rules relating to Staff of Self Supporting (Funded) Court of Wards Temples under the Control and Superintendence of Devasthan Department Rules, 1959 are generally called as Rajasthan Fund Service Rules, 1959 and a look at the rules shows that Chapter-III of the said Rules lays down the conditions of the service of the employees appointed under the said Rules. As per Rule 20, the employees are to be appointed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan or by a Committee authorized by the Devasthan. The pay and allowances of the staff of the temple or institution would be fixed according to the suitability by the Devasthan Department. The retired benefits shall also be provided under the provident fund, travelling allowance, dearness allowance etc. are also payable to the employees working in the said temples. The Chapter VI relating to leave has also been provided under the said Rules. The Government has framed the Rules and has made amendments in the said Rules from time to time. The Rules published in the Rajasthan Gazette on 03.09.1959 are for all intents and purposes statutory rules and governed service conditions of the employees working in the temples. The employees, therefore, would be permitted to perform their duties and would be engaged in the affairs of the State. Once, this Court has reached to the conclusion that they are governed by rules as above, they would be held to be engaged in the affairs of the State and if any of them expires while in service, he would fall within the definition of "deceased government servant" as defined under the Rules of 1996. The petitioner would thus fall within the definition of a "dependent" in terms of definition defined under Section 2(c) of the Rules of 1996. 9. It is noticed that the application for compassionate appointment was denied by the Commissioner on the ground that the Rules of 1959 do not provide for compassionate appointment, he has instead appointed the petitioner on contract basis. 10. 9. It is noticed that the application for compassionate appointment was denied by the Commissioner on the ground that the Rules of 1959 do not provide for compassionate appointment, he has instead appointed the petitioner on contract basis. 10. In the opinion of this Court, the order of rejection on the application for appointment on compassionate ground was wholly erroneous as the Rules of 1959 were not required to be looked into for the purpose of examining the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and it was Rules of 1996, which would hold field. 11. Having said so, this Court reaches to the conclusion that appointment of the petitioner initially in 2004 would be treated to be a compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1996 and would not be treated as a contractual appointment. The action of the respondents in treating the petitioner's appointment on contract basis is accordingly held to be unjustified and illegal. The petitioner would be therefore entitled to continuity of service as also all the service benefits as available to a dependent of the deceased government servant w.e.f. 2004. The petitioner shall be entitled to the regular pay scale as available to the Nidhi Prabandhak as laid down by the Devasthan Department under the Rules of 1959. The salary shall accordingly be fixed w.e.f. 2004 and arrears thereto shall be released. However, the amount paid to the petitioner on contractual basis shall be calculated and deducted from the arrears. The petitioner shall also be entitled to regular increments under the Rules. The entire exercise aforesaid shall be conducted within a period of three months. 12. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. All the pending applications are also disposed of.