ORDER 1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both these petitions, hence with the consent of counsel for both the sides, these matters are taken up for final disposal and both these petitions are decided by this common order. Case of the petitioners and their submissions: 2. The grievance of the petitioner Kusumlata is that her husband and father of the petitioner Suraj Kumar Verma died while in service on 28.04.2004. Immediately after death of the husband, the petitioner Kusumlata submitted an application before the respondents for getting appointment on compassionate grounds. Counsel submits that when no order were passed by the respondents the petitioner Kusumlata approached this Court by way of filing SB Civil Writ Petition No.1859/2007 and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 23.05.2011 and the respondents were directed to consider her case for appointment on compassionate grounds. Counsel submits that the said order was challenged by the respondents before the Division Bench of this Court by way of filing DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.1079/2011 and the said appeal was disposed of vide order dated 15.02.2012 indicating therein to consider the case of the petitioner Kusumlata for appointment on compassionate grounds and in case any deficiency is found in her application the same may be cured or rectified within a time frame. Counsel submits that in compliance of the order passed by the Single Bench and Division Bench of this Court the respondents passed an order on 27.02.2012 granting appointment to the petitioner Kusumlata on the post of Class-IV employee. Counsel submits that the petitioner Kusumlata showed her inability to join the service on account of health reasons, hence she submitted an application before the respondents to consider the case of her son Suraj Kumar Verma for appointment on compassionate grounds. Counsel submits that the application filed by the petitioner Kusumlata was taken into account and it was found that the son Suraj Kumar Verma was minor and he had not attained the age of 18 years, hence the matter was kept in abeyance for consideration for his appointment at appropriate stage after his attaining the age of majority. Counsel submits that when the petitioner Suraj Kumar Verma attained the age of majority i.e. 18 years a request was made to the respondents to consider his case for appointment. Counsel submits that when the petitioner Suraj Kumar Verma attained the age of majority i.e. 18 years a request was made to the respondents to consider his case for appointment. Counsel submits that at this time the respondents refused to offer appointment to the petitioner Suraj Kumar Verma by giving reference of Rule 6 (2) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (for short the ‘Rules of 1996’). Counsel submits that the respondents were not having any authority to decline appointment to both mother and son. The respondents could have considered the case of either the mother or the son for appointment on compassionate grounds. Counsel submits that the respondents are bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Once the promise has been made by them to consider the case of her son at appropriate stage, then they cannot take u-turn to deny appointment to the son of the petitioner Kusumalata on the count that earlier the mother was given appointment but she has shown her inability to join offered post, therefore, appointment cannot be denied to the petitioner Suraj Kumar Verma. In support of his contentions he has place reliance upon the following judgments: 1. The Union of India and Ors. vs. Aspak (DB Civil Writ Petition No.6828/2021) decided on 16.07.2021. 2. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in AIR 1979 SC 621 . 3. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted and appropriate directions be issued to the respondents to consider the case of either of the petitioners for appointment on the compassionate grounds. Submissions by the respondents : 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners and submitted that in compliance of the orders passed by the Single Bench and Division Bench of this Court appointment was given to the petitioner Kusumlata vide order dated 27.02.2012 but at relevant time the said Kusumlata shown her inability to join the offered post on account of her ill health, accordingly her appointment was cancelled vide order dated 18.06.2012. Counsel submits that no promise was made by the respondents to consider the case of her son Suraj Kumar Verma on him attaining the age of majority. Counsel submits that no promise was made by the respondents to consider the case of her son Suraj Kumar Verma on him attaining the age of majority. Counsel submits that the respondents have rightly passed the order impugned dated 18.07.2014 by which the claim of the petitioner Suraj Kumar Verma was declined in the light of Rule 6 (2) of the Rules of 1996. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the respondents have not caused any illegality in denying the appointment to the petitioner Suraj Kumar Verma. Counsel submits that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right as sufficient time has passed after death of the deceased Government servant. In support of his contentions he has place reliance upon the following judgments: 1. Manchha Ram vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. Reported in 2001 (1) RLW 112. 2. Om Palvs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and anr. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.12247/2016) decided on 30.03.2022. Analysis and Reasoning: 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. From the facts narrated in these petitions, it emerges out that the deceased government servant died while in service on 28.04.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner Kusumlata submitted an application for compassionate appointment. When no appointment was given to her, she approached this Court by way of filing SBCWP No. 1859/2007 and the same was allowed on 23.05.2011 by directing the respondents to consider her application for appointment in case her application is found in order. 7. The respondents challenged the above order dated 23.05.2011 before the Division Bench of this Court by way of filing DBSAW No.1079/2011 and the same was disposed of on 15.02.2012 with the following observations and directions:- “2. The writ petitioner/respondent filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1859/2007 before Single Bench with a prayer to issue direction to respondents/appellants to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. Learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 23.05.2011 allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner and further directed that in case the application is found in order, then to give appointment to the petitioner with effect from the date ofher application notionally. 3. The matter was listed on 13.02.2012 and learned counsel for both the parties prayed for time to seek instructions in the matter. 3. The matter was listed on 13.02.2012 and learned counsel for both the parties prayed for time to seek instructions in the matter. Learned counsel for both the parties, on instructions of their respective parties, agreed to dispose off the special appeal with following directions to the appellants: (i) The application of the petitioner, Smt. Kusum Verma for compassionate appointment will be considered by the appellants within three weeks from today. (ii) If there is any deficiency in the application, then the same will be got cured within one week from today. 4. As agreed by both the parties, special appeal as well as stay application both are disposed off with a direction to the appellants to consider the application of the respondent, Smt. Kusum Verma for compassionate appointment within three weeks from today. If there is any deficiency in the application, then the same will be got cured by the appellants within a week. The respondent will cure the deficiency, if any, as and when it is pointed out. The order of learned Single Bench is modified to the above extent.” 8. In compliance of the order passed by the Single Bench and the Division Bench of this Court, respondents passed an order on 27.02.2012 appointing petitioner Kusumlata on the post of Class IV employee. 9. Thereafter, the petitioner Kusumlata expressed her desire for appointment of her son Suraj Kumar Verma in place of herself by way of filing an application on 18.04.2012 but at the relevant time, the age of her son was below 18 years and appointment of minor was not possible, hence, it was decided by the respondents that his case for appointment would be considered when he would attain the age of majority. The decision was taken by the respondents on 19.06.2012 and accordingly, a day prior to 19.06.2012 i.e. 18.06.2012 the appointment order of the petitioner Kusumlata was cancelled by recording the reasons of her ill health. 10. The decision was taken by the respondents on 19.06.2012 and accordingly, a day prior to 19.06.2012 i.e. 18.06.2012 the appointment order of the petitioner Kusumlata was cancelled by recording the reasons of her ill health. 10. When the son Suraj Kumar Verma attained the age of 18 years, the matter was taken up for reconsideration by the respondents on 18.09.2014 and his claim was rejected by referring to Rule 6 (2) of the Rules, 1996 by observing therein that once appointment has been made to any post under these rules, the benefit extended under Rules of 1996 shall be deemed to have been availed and the case shall not be reopened for appointment to other post under any circumstances. 11. It is worthy to note here that the appointment offered to the petitioner Kusumlata was not availed and accepted by her in the month of June 2012, as she expressed her desire for appointment of her son, who was below 18 years of age at that time, hence, vide order dated 19.06.2012, the respondents decided that appropriate decision for his appointment would be taken after he attains the age of 18 years and accordingly, the appointment order of the petitioner Kusumlata was cancelled on 18.06.2012 on the ground of ill health. While the petitioner Kusumlata never stated before the respondents that due to her ill health reasons, she was not inclined to join the offered post of Class IV employee. This fact is clear from the letter dated 19.06.2012 issued by the Member Secretary to the Secretary of Rajasthan, Legislative Assembly but when the son of the petitioner Kusumlata attained the age of 18 years, respondents took a U-turn and passed the impugned order dated 18.09.2014 and denied appointment to her son by giving reference of Rule 6 (2) of Rules of 1996 which was in fact not applicable in this case. 12. The petitioner Kusumlata did not join the offered post of Class IV employee in pursuance of appointment order dated 27.02.2012 as she expressed her desire for appointment of her son Suraj Kumar Verma and on assurance given by the respondents that case of her minor son would be considered when he would attain the age of 18 years, the petitioner Kusumlata did not join and her appointment was cancelled on 18.06.2012. 13. 13. Relying upon the assurance and promise given by the respondents, the petitioner Kusumalata did not join the offered post of Class IV employee in the month of June, 2012, by putting her in a disadvantageous position by leaving her job for her son in this anticipation that he would get the appointment after attaining the age of 18 years. 14. Now the petitioner Kusumalata has been made to suffer, neither appointment was given to her nor to her son. In spite of her long legal battle against the respondents, injustice has been caused to her by the respondents in violation of doctrine of estoppel. The doctrine of estoppel has been discussed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 1979 (2) SCC 409 and it has been held in para No.5 as under: “We do not think that in order to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel it is necessary for the promisee to show that he suffered detriment as a result of acting in reliance on the promise. But we may make it clear that if by detriment we mean injustice to the promisee were to recede from his promise then detriment would certainly come in as a necessary ingredient. The detriment in such a case is not some prejudice suffered by the promisee by acting on the promise, but the prejudice which would be caused to the promisee, if the promisor were allowed to go back on the promise.” 15. Thus, the order dated 19.06.2012 leaves no room for doubt that the request of the petitioner Kusumalata was accepted by respondents to consider the case of her son for appointment when her son would attain the age of 18 years and under that impression the petitioner Kusumalata did not join the offered post of Class IV employee. 16. The respondents could have refused appointment to the son of the petitioner Kusumalata by saying that there is no provision for keeping any post reserve for him till the time of attainment of age of majority i.e. 18 years, but the respondents did not do so while passing the order dated 19.06.2012. 17. 16. The respondents could have refused appointment to the son of the petitioner Kusumalata by saying that there is no provision for keeping any post reserve for him till the time of attainment of age of majority i.e. 18 years, but the respondents did not do so while passing the order dated 19.06.2012. 17. It is true that under the Rules of 1996, there is no provision for keeping the post of compassionate appointment reserve for any minor till indefinite period i.e. till his/her attaining the age of majority. Hence, the respondents were right in denying him appointment. But by passing the order dated 18.06.2012, the respondents have caused serious prejudice to the widow of the deceased by cancelling her appointment order dated 27.02.2012. 18. It is worthy to make it clear that this Court is aware that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, such rights lapses after passing of sufficient time of death of the deceased government servant. But instant case is a peculiar case where twice directions have been issued by the Single and Division Bench of this Court to grant compassionate appointment to the widow of the deceased but the appointment was cancelled on the ground of ill health and the assurance given by the respondents to consider the case of her son at appropriate stage after he attains the age of majority. Conclusion: 19. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.06.2012 stands quashed and set aside and the appointment order dated 27.02.2012 is restored. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner Kusumlata on the post of Class IV employee forthwith without any further delay and grant her all consequential benefits. 20. With the aforesaid reasons, the petition filed by the petitioner Kusumlata stands allowed. The writ petition filed by the Suraj Kumar Verma stands rejected. 21. Stay application and all application(s) (pending, if any) stand disposed of. 22. Needful be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.