Hon’ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.—This writ petition has been filed for quashing the provisions of Section 2 (c) of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter called the Rules 1974) as being ultra vires, Articles 14 and 39 (a) of the Constitution of India as a son and daughter have to be treated at par and require equal protection of law. A further relief has been sought for quashing the order dated 17.11.2005, by which the petitioner has been denied appointment on compassionate ground.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner claims to be the only child. Her mother died on 15.7.2001 in harness while working as Beldar in U.P. Power Corporation. She filed an application for compassionate employment. As there had been no response by the respondents, the last reminder was filed on 9.11.2005, which has been rejected . vide letter dated 17.11.2005, on the ground that the Rules do not provide for compassionate employment to married daughter. Hence this petition.

3. Shri A.P.N. Giri, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that son and daughter cannot be given different treatment. The definition of ‘family’ in Section 2 (c) requires to be quashed, as does not include married daughters but includes the sons and unmarried daughters. Thus, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Rules have been framed for the benefit of the bereaved family, and social welfare legislation requires liberal interpretation. He, therefore, submits that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. On the other hand, Shri C.K. Rai, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent has vehemently opposed the petition, submitting that the petition does not disclose full facts. There is no pleading about the status of the petitioner’s father and it has not been mentioned as to how she claims to be wholly dependant upon the deceased mother in spite of being married, and nor has it been disclosed as on what day she got married, though she is 32 years of age. There is no evidence or reliable document on record to show that she had ever made any representation/application for employment on compassionate ground prior to 9.11.2005, which stood rejected vide letter dated 17.11.2005. The averments to the effect that she had been making representations repeatedly seem to be without any basis and are afterthought. It is for the legislature to determine the manner it wants to grant relief to the people. The petition cannot be entertained on such vague pleadings. More so, the petitioner cannot claim to be a member of the two families simultaneously. In case the married daughter is included in the family definition of her parents, she cannot claim herself to be a family member of her husband. Therefore, the averments made in the petition are contradictory, and the petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The admitted facts as they emerge, as under :

(1) Petitioner has not disclosed whether her father is alive, and if not, then when did he die and what was his status.

(2) Petitioner has not revealed as on what date she got married and what is the financial condition of her husband.

(3) Petitioner has not indicated how she was dependant upon her mother if her husband was alive.

(4) Petitioner has received (as death-cum-retiremental benefit) a sum of Rs.3,72,750/-, which shall be sufficient for her.

(5) It is not the part of the pleading as to whether the Rules 1974 have ever been adopted by the respondent-Corporation.

6. If the case is examined in view of the aforesaid admitted facts, it will be a futile exercise to proceed with the case, in the absence of any material pleading regarding adoption of the said Rules by the Corporation, and without disclosing the father’s status and without disclosing the financial condition of the pe