JUDGMENT : DINESH MEHTA, J. 1. The petitioner has called in question, the order dated 19.02.2018, whereby his appointment on compassionate ground has been cancelled. 2. The facts appertain to the issue in hands are that petitioner’s mother Sharda Goyal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased Government Servant’) was working with the respondent-Department while his father was serving the State Pollution Control Board. 3. Petitioner’s mother Sharda Goyal developed cancer for which his father had to take leave for her treatment and care. On account of frequent leaves he was under mental and physical stress due to which, he submitted an application for voluntary retirement under the relevant rules on 24.06.2017. 4. Petitioner’s mother Sharda Goyal (deceased Govt. servant) passed away on 01.07.2017. The application for voluntary retirement so given by petitioner’s father came to be accepted on 19.09.2017. 5. It is the case set up by the petitioner that in order to maintain the family including himself, on 24.10.2017, he moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1996”). 6. Pursuant to application dated 24.10.2017, the respondents accorded appointment to the petitioner per-viam order dated 08.01.2018. 7. Before the petitioner could settle in the employment, all of a sudden, the order impugned dated 19.02.2018 came to be passed and his appointment was cancelled. 8. Mr. Manish Shishodia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Jaideep Singh Saluja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, argued that the action on the part of the respondents is per se illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law. 9. He firstly submitted that if the respondents were of the view that the appointment given to the petitioner was in any manner contrary to the Rules of 1996, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have issued a notice to the petitioner. 10. On merit, learned counsel submitted that the respondents have taken an absolutely incorrect interpretation of the Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 and have held petitioner’s appointment to be contrary to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996, because, on the date of death of petitioner’s mother (01.07.2017), his father was still in service. 11. While highlighting the fact that petitioner’s father had applied for voluntary retirement on 24.06.2017, Mr. 11. While highlighting the fact that petitioner’s father had applied for voluntary retirement on 24.06.2017, Mr. Shishodia, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the said application came to be accepted by his employer (Rajasthan Pollution Control Board) on 19.09.2017, whereafter there remained no earning member in petitioner’s family and hence, the petitioner was legally entitled to claim and get the appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996, which uses an expression “at the time of death of the Government servant or on the date of appointment of the dependent.” 12. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in exactly identical fact situation, this Court in the case of Deepak Singh Chouhan vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14551/2019, decided on 04.07.2023, has held the petitioner therein to be entitled for appointment. 13. Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – State on the other hand submitted that nonobservance of principles of natural justice in the present set of facts is not a serious error/lapse so as to warrant interference of this Court, inasmuch as, the facts were clear on record and rather admitted. He added that since facts and statutory provisions were already known to the petitioner, even if notices were issued, the same would have made no difference, when it comes to interpreting Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996. 14. Mr. Singh submitted that if the interpretation being claimed by the petitioner is accepted, it will frustrate the whole purpose of the Rules of 1996, which have been introduced in order to tide over the immediate financial constraints faced by the family of deceased Government servant. He expressed a concern that such interpretation would be misused by the families whose one or more family members are already in Government job, as has been sought to be done by the petitioner and his family. 15. Learned counsel further argued that true it is, that w.e.f. 8.04.2015, Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 has been amended and the expression “or at the time of appointment of the dependent” has been inserted, but the same has to be interpreted in consonance with the spirit and scheme of the Rules of 1996 and the petitioner cannot claim appointment dehors the provisions and true import and purport of the Rules of 1996. 16. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 16. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. 17. In the opinion of this Court, had the Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 not been amended and the expression “or at time of the appointment of the dependent” was not introduced, perhaps what had been argued by the learned counsel for the State was the only possible view or interpretation. But, when the State itself has amended the Rules of 1996 in its own wisdom, it cannot be contended that the part brought in by the amendment in the Rule 5 of the Rules of 1996 be not operated or given effect to simply on apprehension of misuse. 18. In almost similar factual matrix, in the case of Deepak Singh Chouhan (supra), this Court has allowed the writ petition by observing thus: “14. It is noteworthy that before the death of the government servant (on 07.10.2017), petitioner’s mother-Mithilesh Kumari had applied for voluntary retirement which came to be accepted on 29.11.2017. The petitioner has moved the application for appointment under the Rules of 1996 on 11.12.2017. 15. True it is, that on the date of death of the government servant, petitioner’s mother- Mithilesh Kumari was in government service but when the petitioner moved the application for compassionate appointment, his mother had retired (w.e.f. 01.12.2017). 16. In view of the amended provision of Rule 5, this Court is of the considered opinion that since on the relevant date i.e. at the time of submitting the application by the petitioner, his mother was not in government service, condition mentioned in Rule 5 (1) of the Rules of 1996 does not pose any hurdle in petitioner’s way of seeking appointment. 17. Since Rule making Authority has amended Rule 5 in order to make the date of appointment of the dependent a relevant date for considering right to compassionate appointment, in the opinion of this Court, the order impugned dated 26.07.2019 passed by the Commissioner of the respondent Corporation is clearly contrary to law. 18. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The order dated 26.07.2019 is hereby quashed.” 19. Concededly, on the date of application under the Rules of 1996 (24.10.2017), petitioner’s father Gaj Singh Goyal had retired (19.09.2017). 20. In view of the discussion foregoing and following the view taken in the case of Deepak Singh Chouhan (supra), the present writ petition is also allowed. 21. The order dated 26.07.2019 is hereby quashed.” 19. Concededly, on the date of application under the Rules of 1996 (24.10.2017), petitioner’s father Gaj Singh Goyal had retired (19.09.2017). 20. In view of the discussion foregoing and following the view taken in the case of Deepak Singh Chouhan (supra), the present writ petition is also allowed. 21. The order dated 19.02.2018 so also consequential relieving order dated 20.02.2018 is hereby quashed. 22. The petitioner has been continuing in service for last 5 years per force interim order dated 26.02.2018, passed by this Court; the petitioner shall, therefore, be treated to be in service for such period and his case for regularization etc. shall be considered accordingly. Consequence be follow. 23. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.