JUDGMENT
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. This case is illustrative of the casual and perfunctory approach of the departmental authorities while dealing with the cases of dependents of the deceased Government servants for appointment in the Government service in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Recruitment of the Dependents of Government Servants Dying while in Service Rules, 1975. Petitioner’s father late Shri Satya Narain Choudhary was serving as Patwari in district Ajmer and was posted in Tehsil Beawar at the time of his demise on 4.11.91. Shri Satya Narain Choudhary had only one issue, namely, the petitioner and he was survived by widow Smt. Shimla Devi, mother of the petitioner. Petitioner is married to Shri Ajay Choudhary out she has been living with her mother.
2. Petitioner passed Secondary Examination in the year 1986 from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan Ajmer. She passed Higher Secondary Examination from the same Board in the year 1987. She did her graduation in the year 1990 from Government College, Ajmer which is affiliated to the Ajmer University.
3. Mother of the petitioner submitted an application 24.12.91 to the Collector, Ajmer for appointment of the petitioner as a dependent of the deceased Government by stating that her own health was not in a good condition and she was not well educated for doing a job. She requested that her daughter may be appointed on a suitable post. In response to that application collector, Ajmer wrote letter date 7.1.92 (Ex. 5) to the petitioner’s mother and asked her to submit application in. the prescribed proforma alongwith certificate of age and education. Petitioner’s mother submitted the application in the prescribed form and also enclosed the relevant certificates. However, on 17.2.92, the Collector, Ajmer issued order (Ex. 8) declaring that married daughter does not have any right to claim appointment as a dependent of the deceased servant and in terms of the Government Circular dated, 28.3.87 a widow who has crossed 50 years, who is issueless and who is physically incapable of Government service can recommend the employment of other person. Petitioner’s mother then wrote letter dated 20.3.92 claiming that there was no restriction on nomination of a married daughter for appointment under 1975 Rules and since she was physically incapable of doing Government service she was nominating her daughter for appointment as dependent of late Satya Narain Choudhary. Collector, Ajmer forwarded the application for appointment of the petitioner submitted by the petitioner’s mother. In its letter dated 11.5.92, the Collector, Ajmer made a reference to the Government Circular No. F. 5/6/Personnel-AII/75-ii dated, 28.3.81 and sought Government’s guidance for taking a decision in the matter. The Department of Personnel wrote letter dated, 29.5.92 (Ex. 11) to the Collector, Ajmer indicating that the application should be submitted in the prescribed form. Collector was directed to take action in accordance with the rules. On 24.6.92 the Collector, Ajmer wrote letter (Ex. 12) to the petitioner’s mother and called upon her to submit certificate of physical incapacity from the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Ajmer. The petitioner complied with this requirement and submitted that certificate alongwith letter dated, 14.9.92 (Ex. 13 & 14). She Once again submitted application in the prescribed proforma (Ex. 15) and also submitted an affidavit (Ex. 16). Notwithstanding all these communications the Collector, Ajmer rejected the request made by the petitioner’s mother for appointment of the petitioner and conveyed this decision to the petitioner’s mother vide Exhibit-17 dated, 20.1.93. The petitioner’s mother again wrote on 20.2.93 that her daughter be appointed because, she was physically incapable of rendering service. Once again the Collector, Ajmer wrote letter dated, 8.4.93 (Ex. 9) to the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms for grant of sanction for appointment of the petitioner.
4. According to the petitioner, notwithstanding these communications the petitioner has not been given appointment.
5. In the writ petition the petitioner has stated that in terms of Rule-2(f) of 1975 Rules, her mother (widow of Satya Narain Choudhary) has a right to nominated the petitioner for appointment under 1975 Rules and the respondents have failed to discharge their obligation under 1975 Rules by giving appointment to her as a dependent of late Shri Satya Narain Choudhary.
6. The only argument advanced by Shri Resham Bhargava, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that even though a mandatory obligation has been imposed on the respondents to take immediate steps for giving employment to a dependent of a deceased government servant, the departmental authorities have failed to issue appropriate order for the last two years despite the fact that the petitioner’s mother has unequivocally expressed herself regarding nomination of the petitioner. Shri Bhargava argued that being a widow of late Shri Satya Narain Choudhary, the petitioner’s mother has a right to nominate the petitioner and there is no restriction in the rules on the nomination of a married daughter. More-over, when the mother of the petitioner has expressed that the petitioner would look-after her, there is no reason to disbelieve her version.
7. Rules of 1975 have been enacted with the sole object of giving employment to a member of the family of the deceased Government servant on compassionate ground so that the family of such deceased Government servant is not rendered without source of livelihood after the death of the Government servant concerned. Precisely for this reason it has been enjoined upon the competent authorities to give appointment to an eligible dependent of the deceased Government Servant without delay.
8. In Smt. Sushma Gosain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , their Lordships of the Supreme Court had observed:
It can be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay In appointment, the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground Is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is Improper to keep such case pending for years. If there Is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.
9. The same view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Phool wait v. Union of India 1991 (Suppl.) 2 S.C.C. 689.
10. This Court has also time and again emphasized the necessity of expeditious disposal of the application filed for appointment as a dependent of the deceased Government servant. It is expected of the functionaries of a welfare state who are entrusted with the task of implementing the welfare legislations to give effect to the objects with which such legislations are enacted. Reminders of the Court should not ordinarily be required by these authorities, but when the Court reminds them of their duties at least then they must appreciate the urgency with which such legislations must be given effect to.
11. Taking into consideration the observations made by the Supreme Court and the position of law, I direct the respondents to consider the application filed by Smt. Shimla Devi, mother of the petitioner and pass necessary order for appointment of the petitioner under Rule-5 of 1975 Rules within a period of one month of submission of certified copy of this order to the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms.
12. With the above direction the writ petition is disposed of.