Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

Father of our nation said :-

"I am uncompromising in the matter of women's right She should labour under no legal disability not suffered by men I should treat the daughters and sons on a footing of perfect equality."

"Mahatma Gandhi"

2. The above stated quote squarely applies to the following facts of the case, which are as under:-

2.1. Shri Uttam Singh Sinha, father of the petitioner herein while working as Lineman with the respondents/Company died in harness on 7.4.2008 leaving her wife Manka Bai and two daughters namely Roshani Bai and the petitioner herein. At that time, Roshani Bai, her elder daughter was already married and petitioner herein/younger daughter was unmarried; and the petitioner herein, being unmarried daughter of the deceased/employee entitled for compassionate appointment in terms of policy of the Board applicable dated 28.02.2004, applied for compassionate appointment on 2.7.2008 but her application was not decided and meanwhile she got married on 29.4.2009.

2.2. By the impugned order Annexure P-1, her application was rejected on the ground that now she is married and according to the Circular, married daughter is not entitled for compassionate appointment.

2.3. The writ petition has been filed calling in question the paragraph 2 of the Circular dated 28.02.2004, by which only unmarried daughter is held entitled for compassionate appointment and the married daughter is not entitled for compassionate appointment. The petitioner also seeks to challenge the impugned order rejecting her candidature on the basis of above stated circular.

3. Return has been filed opposing the writ petition stating inter alia that married people form a class by themselves. If married daughters are taken out and classified as one group and married sons as another group from this class of married people, it cannot be said that it is a class legislation discriminating one group/class against the other. It has been pleaded that it is a reasonable classification of married daughters as one group as distinguished from the married sons classified as another group. The said classification has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Article 14 of the Constitution of India permits reasonable classification of a group from other groups, what it prohibits is a class legislation. It is not a class legislation but a reasonable classification of different people into different groups. There cannot be a comparison between one member of one group and another member of another group for alleging discrimination. Discrimination can be alleged only if two members of the same group are differently treated. That is not the case here and therefore there is no discrimination at all in the present case. The petition is founded on the allegation of discrimination which is non-existent in the present case and therefore the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed by this Court. It was further pleaded that the object of the scheme is to reach financial assistance to the deceased employee's family. It cannot be said that financial assistance can be provided only by giving employment to one member of the family. Grant of compassionate appointment is one of the ways recognised to achieve this object but that is not the only one. There is another way laid down by the compassionate appointment scheme of the respondents. It is by way of payment of annuity (regular payment) which is an additional financial benefit over and above payment of family pension, gratuity, etc. The widow of the deceased employee has been in receipt of payment of annuity and therefore the claim of the petitioner is in fact for a second benefit out of the compassionate appointment scheme which is not permissible in law. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed by this Court. It was also pleaded that after the retirement of the employee from service he and all his family members depend upon the retiral dues and after his death before or