JUDGMENT : 1. Looking to the nature of relief sought in the writ petition with regard to compassionate appointment and with the consent of counsel for both the parties, the matter was heard finally at the admission stage. 2. Brief facts of the instant case are that petitioner filed the instant writ petition stating therein that she performed marriage with one Shri Mangesh Parcha on 22.11.2009. After marriage, she has been living with her in-laws. Her mother-in-law Smt. Sohani Devi was the sole bread earner in the family, who was serving as Safai Karmi in the office of respondent-Municipal Corporation. She was holding substantive post in the respondent-Municipal Corporation. Father-in-law of the petitioner had already expired and her mother-in-law, who was having only source of earning in the entire family, also unfortunately expired on 31.01.2023. Her husband is an unemployed person and is having no source of income. 3. It has been stated in the memo of writ petition by the petitioner that on account of sudden death of late Smt. Sohani Devi (mother-in-law) of the petitioner, the entire family went under deep financial crisis and they were striving hard for maintaining the family. Hence, the petitioner submitted an application under the provisions of Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependent of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (for short, as referred to hereinafter ‘ the Rules of 1996’) for seeking compassionate appointment in place of her mother-in-law, who died on 31.01.2023 while in service and left the entire family in harness. As per the petitioner, the application was filed within the time prescribed under the Rules of 1996 for seeking compassionate appointment. The application was supported that ‘No Objection Certificate’ of other family members, who gave their consent for appointing the petitioner on compassionate in place of deceased Smt. Sohani Devi (mother-in- law) of the petitioner. The petitioner further states that her application for compassionate appointment was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Municipal Corporation, Ajmer, vide letter/order dated 04.05.2023 solely on the ground that ‘daughter-in-law’ is not considered to be a dependent under the Rules of 1996. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the aforesaid order/communication dated 04.05.2023 and further sought a direction against the respondents to grant her compassionate appointment on the post of Safai Karmi in place of her deceased mother-in-law. 4. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the aforesaid order/communication dated 04.05.2023 and further sought a direction against the respondents to grant her compassionate appointment on the post of Safai Karmi in place of her deceased mother-in-law. 4. Counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the writ petition by raising an objection that compassionate appointment can be granted within the frame-work of Rule and as per definition of Rule 2(C) of the Rules of 1996, ‘daughter-in-law’ cannot be considered as ‘dependent’ and, therefore, the application submitted by the petitioner for seeking compassionate appointment was rightly rejected by the respondents. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and also perused the record. 6. Sole question arises in the instant matter is as to whether ‘daughter-in-law’ can be considered as dependent of deceased employee or not? 7. Rule 2(C) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 is reproduced as under:- “Dependent” means: (i) Spouse, or (ii) Son including son legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life time, or (iii) unmarried/widowed/divorced daughter including daughter legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life time, or (iv) married daughter, if no other dependent of the deceased Government servant mentioned in clause (ii) and (iii) above is available, or (v) mother, father, unmarried brother or unmarried sister in case of unmarried deceased Government servant, who was wholly dependent on the deceased Government servant at the time of his/ her death. 8. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that impugned communication/order dated 04.05.2023 is based on narrow interpretation of aforesaid Rule 2(C) of the Rules of 1996 and is rather frustrating the very purpose for which the scheme of grant of compassionate appointment has been framed by the Government for providing immediate relief to the family of deceased Government servant, who died while in service leaving the entire family in harness. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Pinki Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2011 (4) RLW 3298 (Raj.) [in SBCWP No. 9177/2010 decided on 12.09.2011] , the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Sushila Devi , DBSAW No. 383/2023 decided on 04.07.2023 and the judgment delivered in the case of Smt. Nirjara Singhvi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2011 (4) RLW 3298 (Raj.) [in SBCWP No. 9177/2010 decided on 12.09.2011] , the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Sushila Devi , DBSAW No. 383/2023 decided on 04.07.2023 and the judgment delivered in the case of Smt. Nirjara Singhvi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., SBCWP No. 2291/2022 decided on27.07.2023, at Principal Seat, Jodhpur. 9. Counsel for the respondents has argued that scope of Rule 2(C) of the Rules of 1996 defying dependent cannot be enlarged and the relief claimed by the petitioner is totally misconceived, hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 10. In the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Pinki Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) , the question which arose for consideration was as to whether “widowed daughter in law” can be considered to be dependent of deceased Government Servant in the light of definition prescribed in Rule 2(C) of the aforesaid Rules. While considering the aforesaid Rule, this Court was of the view that the aforesaid Rule requires purposive construction, which as a matter of fact, is an extension or to say a dimension to the doctrine of the literal construction of a statute. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court referred the definition of purposive interpretation is under: "A purposive construction of an enactment is one which gives effect to the legislative purpose by : (a) following the literal meaning of the enactment where that meaning is in accordance with the legislative purpose, or (b) applying a strained meaning where the literal meaning is not in accordance with the legislative purpose." 11. It has further been held in the above judgment that in exceptional cases without having any effect of amending the law, the Courts with a view to bring the law as per the reasonable and purposive intention of the law maker and also looking to all relevant objective conditions may adopt the doctrine of "purposive interpretation".In the Indian society a daughter-in-law is supposed to be a daughter and integral member of the family and she possesses all honour as well as the responsibilities of the household and is also supposed to take care of her in-laws family. Thus, when daughter has been included as dependent in Rule 2(C) of the Rules of 1996, it has been held by this Court in the aforesaid judgment of Pinki Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) that the term of ‘daughter in law’ in itself indicates that she is to be accepted as ‘daughter’ by in-laws. As such, for all purposes the term ‘daughter’ is wide enough to be included ‘daughter in law’ and, therefore, this Court directed even the “widowed daughter in law”is already a dependent under the Rule 2(C) of the Rules of 1996. 12. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Sushila Devi (supra), also considered the similar situation where application for compassionate appointment submitted by ‘daughter in law’ was rejected on the similar ground she is not included in the definition of dependent family members under the Rules. After relying upon the judgment of Pinki Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra), it was observed that compassionate appointment is an exception to the General Rules but has also become one of the essential attribute of public employment. After meticulously examination, the scheme of the Rules and different judgments, it was held that even a widowed daughter in law can be considered to be dependent of deceased Government Servant. 13. In the case of Smt. Nirjara Singhvi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) , this Court has observed that the intention and purpose of the legislature will be gainfully achieved if the benefit of compassionate appointment is extended in such a situation as mentioned by the petitioner and has also observed that claim of the daughter in law for grant of compassionate appointment is more than deserving and even stands on much better footing than the claim of daughter and by rejecting the objection other respondent that daughter in law does not come within the purview of dependent, this Court directed the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner in the aforesaid case. 14. 14. In view of the above, it is no more res-integra that strict and narrow interpretation a definition of dependent as prescribed under Rule 2(C) of the Rules of 1996 may frustrate the entire scheme of grant of compassionate appointment, more particularly, when this Court has already examined that the purposive construction of the Rules may make the Rules with regard to compassionate appointment more effective and workable, so that the object of framing such Rules may be achieved in true sense. Hence, in the instant case, the respondents have erroneously rejected the application submitted by the petitioner treating her not to be a dependent of Government Servant. 15. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position in judgments, it is held that “daughter in law” can be considered to be a dependent of deceased Government Servant and therefore she is also eligible to seek compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1996. Hence, order/communication dated 04.05.2023 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner treating her to be dependent of deceased Government Servant (her mother in law), if she is otherwise fulfilling other criteria under the Rules, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 16. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. 17. Stay application, all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.