Judgment:
Parihar, J.
1. The appellants have challenged the order dated July 4, 1996, passed by learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition, filed by the appellants. The husband of the appellant Smt. Kuntha Devi, was serving in the Irrigation Department and died while in service on December 24, 1976. The case of the appellant is that at the time of death of her husband, they had only one daughter who was married. After death of her husband, the real brother of appellant No. 1 started living with her and thereafter, on May 6, 1991, the appellant No. 1 adopted her real brother as her son. Further, the case of the appellant is that at the time of the death of her husband her brother, now adopted son, was a minor and after registering the adoption deed on May 6, 1991 her adopted son applied for the employment under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1975'). However, when the application was not entertained by the department, they filed a writ petition before this Court on February 1, 1996 and the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated July 4, 1996.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Davendra Raghav, vehemently argued that appellant No. 1 having legally adopted her younger brother as son and there being no other member in the family, her adopted son is entitled for employment under the 'Rules of 1975'. Counsel for the appellant has relied on Rule 5 and Rule 2-f of the 'Rules of 1975'. Counsel for the appellants submits that the definition of family includes adopted son. Further, the provision to the definition of family provides that the widow of the deceased may nominate any close relative if no such member of the family is found eligible for getting benefit under these Rules. Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that at the time of death of husband of the appellant No. 1, the adopted son was minor and, as such, after attaining the age of majority in the year 1991, he is entitled for employment under Rule 5 of the 'Rules of 1975'.
3. To appreciate the whole controversy, Rule 2(f) and Rule 5 of the 'Rules of 1975' are quoted as under ;
'2(f):-- 'Family' means the family of the deceased Government Servant and shall include wife or husband, sons and married or 'widow daughters and son/daughter adopted according to the provisions of law by the deceased Government Servant' who were dependent on the deceased Government servant :
'Provided that if no such member of the family be eligible for getting benefit under these Rules, the benefit available under these Rules may be extended to any other close relative of the deceased to be named by the widow of the Guardian of the children of the deceased with the specific approval of the Department of Personnel'
'5. Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased :-- In case of deceased Government Servants one member of his family who is not already employee under the Central/State Government or Statutory and/Organisation/ Corporations owned or controlled by the Central/State Government shall, on making an application for the purpose, be given a suitable employment in Government service without delay only against an existing vacancy, which is not within the purview of the State Public Service Commission, in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules, provided such member fulfils the educational qualification prescribed for the post and is also otherwise qualified for Government service in the event of non-availability of a vacancy or any of the members of the family, being unqualified or minor is not found suitable or eligible for immediate employment, then such cases should be considered immediately on the availability of the post or any one or them becomes qualified or eligible for such employment under these Rules :
Provided that recruitment may be made on posts which are within the purview of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, except the major State Services mentioned in Rule 3, where the Appointing Authority is satisfied in consultation within the Department of Personnel and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission that a dependent of a deceased Government servant is qualified and suitable for appointment to such post.'
4. In our considered view, both the above Rules are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the definition of family, it is clear that the adoption has to be made by the deceased Government Servant himself according to the provisions of law. In the present case, the deceased Government servant died way back on December 24, 1976 whereas adoption took place by the wife of the deceased Government Servant after a lapse of about 14 years. Further more, even as per proviso to the definition of family, the widow of the deceased Government Servant can nominate any other close relative of the deceased if no other member of the family as provided under the definition of family, is eligible for getting benefit under the Rules. However, there has to be a specific approval of the department of personnel in this regard. In the present case, the husband of the appellant died on December 24, 1976. The appellant did not apply for her own employment for more than 14 years nor nominated any other person. It was only in 1991 that she adopted her own brother as son and he applied for the employment under the 'Rules of 1975'. It is also not the case of the appellant that she applied for specific approval of the department of personnel as provided under the 'Rules of 1975', but that could also not have been given after the lapse of such an inordinate delay.
5. This Court in number of judgments while relying on judgments of Apex Court has held that employment under 'Rules of 1975' cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Recently, the Apex Court in case of Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Panwar and Ors. (1996-I-LLJ-1066), while relying on its earlier decision in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors. (1995-I-LLJ-798), has categorically held that compassionate employment is intended to provide immediate relief to the family on the sudden death of the earning member. The compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. It cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
6. The Apex Court in the case of Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Panwar and Ors. (supra), quoted the observations made in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (supra), which are also relevant in the present case. The observations made by the Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra) are quoted here as under :--
'As a rule, appointments, in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Government nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interest of justice to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide, gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis.
'The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Class III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency'
'For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.'
7. The Apex Court further relied on observations made in the case of Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar (1996-I-LLJ-1105), decided on November 13, 1995 and observed as under atp.1105 :--
'The very object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employees who die in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. Since the death occurred way back in 1971, in which year, the appellant was four years old, it cannot be said that he is entitled to be appointed after he attained majority long thereafter. In other words, if that contention is accepted, it amounts to another mode of recruitment of the dependent of a deceased Government servant which cannot be encouraged, dehors the recruitment rules.'
8. In the light of the consistent view expressed by the Apex Court, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly as having no force.