ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 30.05.2016 whereby an application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. The reason for rejection is that the brother of the deceased employee does not fall within the definition of ‘dependent’ as defined under Section 2(c) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1996’). 2. The case of the petitioner is that his brother Dr. Nitesh Gaur met with an accident and unfortunately, expired. The family comprises of his mother, father and the present petitioner being the younger brother of the deceased employee. The deceased was not married and hence his parents as well as his younger brother were totally dependent on the deceased employee. It has further been submitted that the mother of the deceased is suffering from cancer and the present petitioner, that is, his younger brother, is an unemployed student. Therefore, there being no bread earner in the family after the death of the employee, the petitioner, who was totally dependent on the deceased employee at the time of his death and being the only person available in the family to support and take care of his parents, deserves to be granted compassionate appointment. 3. Before entering into the adjudication on the issue whether an unemployed brother can be termed to be a dependent of an unmarried deceased Government servant, it is relevant to note that the State Government has, vide notification dated 28.10.2021, amended clause (c) of Rule 2 of Rules of 1996 and has now included mother, father, unmarried brother and unmarried sister also in the definition of “Dependent” in case of unmarried deceased Government servant. 4. The issue whether a brother of the unmarried deceased Government employee would be entitled for compassionate appointment or not has been raised and dealt with in past too and the specific opinion of the Courts had been that “Family” would necessarily include father, mother, unmarried brother and unmarried sister in the case of an unmarried deceased Government servant. On the said logic, the brother of the unmarried deceased Government servant has been held to be entitled for compassionate appointment subject to the condition that he was totally dependent on the deceased Government servant at the time of his death. 5. On the said logic, the brother of the unmarried deceased Government servant has been held to be entitled for compassionate appointment subject to the condition that he was totally dependent on the deceased Government servant at the time of his death. 5. In Jaswant Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 1993 (3) WLC 695 also, the person applying for compassionate appointment was the brother of the deceased Government servant. In the said matter, while relying upon Herald Hemalton’s case, the Court observed as under: “The petitioner is a commerce graduate and under the Rules of 1975, he is entitled to be appointed as a dependent of the deceased Government employee commensurating with the qualification held by him on a post for which he is found suitable. Accordingly, the communications Annexure 7 dated 21.4.1990 and Annx.9 dated Nil, No. F4(3) vivid/90/Mu-Aa-Sin/Stha-3/2696, are quashed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner under the Rules of 1975 and give him a suitable appointment commensurating with his qualification under the Rules.” 6. Similar situation arose in Rajiv Gupta vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5928/2004) decided on 26.07.2006 and the Court in the said case observed as under: “.......that there is no specific bar for not giving appointment to the brother of dependent who was given appointment under the dependent quota in place of his deceased father and after the death of said brother within short span of 5 months of the service, the family reached to the worst financial condition. The aim and object of the Rules of 1996 is not to give temporary relief for short duration but the same is one of the regular benefit given to the family of the deceased Government servant. The present petitioner was initially also eligible for appointment but the mother of the petitioner consented for his elder brother and the death is such kind of misfortune which can never be foreseen. Therefore, the present case requires sympathetic consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.” 7. In view of ratio as laid down in the above judgments, it is clear that the main object behind the Rules of 1996 is to consider the dependency of the deceased employee, to take care of the dependents of the deceased employee and to save them from financial crisis. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.” 7. In view of ratio as laid down in the above judgments, it is clear that the main object behind the Rules of 1996 is to consider the dependency of the deceased employee, to take care of the dependents of the deceased employee and to save them from financial crisis. Admittedly, in the present case, the only surviving members of the family of the deceased are his father, mother and unmarried brother. It is also clear on record that none of them is employed and were totally dependent on the deceased at the time of his death. Moreover, the mother of the deceased is suffering from the cancer and the present petitioner, that is, the younger brother, was an unemployed student. Therefore, the present petitioner definitely fall in the category of “dependent” may be not in strict sense but definitely in broader perspective and by virtue of the precedents on the issue. Further, keeping in consideration the fact that the State Government itself has now included ‘unmarried brother’ in the definition of the ‘dependents’ of an unmarried deceased Government servant, the fact that the application was preferred by the petitioner soon after the death of the employee in the year 2016 and the fact that soon after the rejection of the application, the present writ petition was preferred before this Court and remained pending till date, the matter definitely requires reconsideration by the respondent-authorities. 8. Regarding the question whether the amended provision of Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 would apply to the present matter, reliance on the Full Court judgment of this Court in the case of Priyanka Shrimali vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2022 (4) DNJ (Raj) 1467 can be made. 9. 8. Regarding the question whether the amended provision of Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 would apply to the present matter, reliance on the Full Court judgment of this Court in the case of Priyanka Shrimali vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2022 (4) DNJ (Raj) 1467 can be made. 9. In Priyanka Shrimali’s case (supra), while striking down the word ‘unmarried’ from the definition of ‘dependent’ qua a daughter, the Court proceeded on to discuss the issue whether the same would apply to the concluded cases or not and observed as under: “So far as apprehensions expressed by the learned counsel for the respondent-State and certain other counsel regarding the consequence of striking down of the word 'unmarried' are concerned, the same are apparently misplaced, inasmuch as, merely on account of quashing of the said word ‘unmarried’ from the definition, by itself cannot revive the concluded cases wherein the appointments have already been accorded in terms of the existing provisions. Further even after, quashing of the word ‘unmarried’ from the definition, the same would apply to the pending cases only as the likely applicants, qua whom the cause of action had arisen long back even otherwise would not be eligible, in view of repeated pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the purpose of grant of compassionate appointments i.e. for the purpose of tiding over the immediate requirement, which arises on account of death of the government servant while in service. In cases where the government servant has died long back, the striking down of the word from the definition, by itself would not provide any fresh cause of action to any of the applicants and, therefore, the apprehension expressed, has no basis.” The Court finally concluded as under: “As a consequence, it is directed that on account of striking down of the word ‘unmarried’ from the definition: (i) the same shall not effect any case, wherein compassionate appointment has already been granted under the provisions as they stood before this order; (ii) the same by itself would not provide a cause of action to any applicant and would apply to cases which are either pending before the competent authority and/or to the cases where litigation is pending on the date of this order only; (iii) the provisions and other requirements of the definition regarding the applicant being wholly dependent on the deceased government servant at the time of his/her death would be scrupulously applied; (iv) all the parameters as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court for grant of compassionate appointment, shall also be scrupulously followed and that (v) all other provisions of the Rules except the inclusion of the married daughter in the definition of dependent’ shall have full application.” 10. A bare perusal of the above judgment makes it clear that the effect of striking down of the word was directed to be applied to cases which were either pending before the competent authority and/or to the cases where litigation was pending on the date of the order. In the present case, the application for compassionate appointment was preferred by the petitioner soon after death of the employee in the year 2016 and soon after rejection of the application, the present writ petition was preferred before this Court which remained pending till date. Therefore also, the matter requires consideration by the respondent-authorities. 11. In view of above observations, the present writ petition is allowed. The respondents-authorities are directed to consider the application of the petitioner and grant him compassionate appointment, if otherwise found legally entitled. Appropriate action be taken within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of the present order. 12. All pending applications stand disposed of.