K. Bhatnagar, J.
1. In this writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challanged the impugned Order Annexure-2 dated 30.3.88 by which his services as L.D.C. were terminated.
2. Petitioner's mother was in employment as Grade III Teacher with the Government of Rajasthan in the Education Department. She expired on 19.9.75 while in service. The petitioner, after passing B.Sc. examination, applied for appointment as L.D.C. under the provisions of the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants dying while in Service Rules, 1975 (for short 'the Rules' hereinafter) and vide Order Annexure-1 dated 3.2.88 was given appointment as L.D.C. in the Education Department. Thereafter vide Annexure-2 dated 30.3.88, the impugned Order, his services were terminated on the ground that his father was not only alive but was also in the Government Service and therefore he did not fall within the definition of `dependant of deceased Government Servant.' As averred in the Writ Petition, petitioner filed a suit in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Sadulsahar. In these proceedings he filed an application Under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and interim injunction order was granted. He continued in service in pursuance of that Order but on 19.5.89 vide Order Annexure-3 the temporary injunction was vacated in view of the administrative Order passed by the Education Department. The Petitioner withdraw the suit and approached this Court for relief.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the authorities have wrongly interpretated the definition of the terms 'deceased Government Servant' and 'family'. It has also been averred that the administrative Order cannot affect the statutory provisions and therefore the Education Department had no authority to Order for the termination of the service of the petitioner which he was entitled to under the provisions of the rules.
4. Notice was issued to the respondents but no reply has been filed. I heared Mr. M. Mridul for the petitioner and Mr. Hemant Chaudhary, Assistant Government Advocate for the respondents.
5. The object of the framing the Rules was to give relief to the family of the deceased Government servants. For the purposes of the Rules, 'deceased Government Servant' means a Government servant who dies while in sevice. The definition of 'family' reads as under:
'Family' means the family of the deceased Government Servant and shall include wife or husband, sons and unmarried 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.
6. There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the definition of the 'family' nowhere mentions complete dependancy of the family member seeking an employment on the deceased Government Servant.
7. Rule 5 of the Rules which deals with the recruitment of the Member of the family of the deceased is also relevant for the purpose. It provides that in case of 'deceased Government servants' one member of his family who is no already employed under the Central/State Government or Statutory Board/Organisations/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 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 qualifications prescribed for the post and is also otherwise qualified for Government service.
8. This rule also does not require complete dependancy of the persons seaking employment under the Rules.
9. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner in Para-8/v. of the petition has referred to two cases where the family members of the deceased female Government servants were given appointment under the Rules despite their fathers being in Government service at the relevant time.
10. The instructions by the Director for not giving appointment to persons whose fathers are alive and in Government at the death of their mothers being administrative orders only shall not override the provisions of the Rules.
11. When lather and mother of a person are in employment, it cannot be said that he is dependant only upon one of them. The relevant words are 'dependant on the deceased Government servant'. It nowhere occurs that the family members seeking employment should be wholly dependant upon the Government servant. If the interpretation of the word 'dependant' is taken to be in the way the respondents want it to be taken, then the family members of the deceased Government servant serving somewhere other than the places mentioned in Rule 5 of the Rules, shall not be entitled to any benefit under the Rules. There may be cases in which the husband and wife both are in Government service and the wife earns more than the husband and so such children would be more dependant on the mother than the father. If, in such cases, the interpretation of the Rules is taken in the light as it has been done in Annexure-2, the very purpose for framing the Rules would be frustrated.
12. In view of the above discussion, the reason given Annexure-2 for terminating the services of the petitioner is not in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and the petitioner is entitled to continue in service.
13. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the Order Annexure-2 dated 30.3.88 is quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated and shall be deemed to be in continuous service with all consequential benefits.