JUDGMENT
P.S. Asopa, J.
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the definition of “Dependent” as defined in Rule 2(c) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointments of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (‘Dependent Rules of 1996’ for short) and has further claimed the appointment on compassionate ground after the death of her father.
2. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that being a married daughter she is not covered by definition of “dependent” of the deceased government employee and the definition of “dependent” as defined in Rule 2(c) of the Dependent Rules of 1996 which cover unmarried/widowed daughter is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Further submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was living separately with her father during his life time as she has separated herself from her husband. Since he petitioner belongs to S.T. Category, therefore, there is no need to take decree of divorce from competent authority.
3. Rule 2(c) of the Dependent Rules of 1996 is as under:
2(c) “Dependent” means a spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, adopted son/daughter legally adopted by the deceased government servant during his/her life-time and who were wholly dependent on the deceased government servant at the time of his/her death.
4. I have considered the above mentioned submissions and is of the view that an unmarried or widowed daughter cannot be placed at par with married daughter who is supposed to be dependent on her husband; from whom she can claim maintenance. Even if the married daughter is separated then also she has right of maintenance against the husband under various Acts. The aforesaid classification is based on intelligible differentia having reasonable nexus with the aims and objects of the Rules to give appointment to a dependent of the deceased and not to the dependent of a husband, doing some other job, therefore, the unmarried or widowed daughter has rightly been included in Rule 2(c) of the definition of “dependent” under Dependent Rules of 1996 and further the married daughter has been rightly excluded. There is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the definition of “dependent” is legal and valid one. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.