Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—The petitioner is the daughter of the decased employee, Smt. Vimla Singh, who was working on the post of Midwife in the department of Family Welfare State of U.P., died in harness on 11.3.2006.

2. Smt. Vimla Singh left three daughters and husband. The petitioner was the eldest one, applied for compassionate appointment on 21.9.2006 under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “Dying in Harness Rules, 1974”).

3. It appears that application has been processed in the year 2008. The Chief Medical Officer, Azamagarh wrote a letter to the Director General Medical Health Services, U.P., Lucknow vide his letter dated 2.4.2008 for necessary action on the application of the petitioner. The said letter is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In pursuance of the letter of the Director General Medical Health Services, U.P., Lucknow dated 7.10.2008, the Chief Medical Officer, Azamgarh wrote a letter dated 10.2.2009 to the Superintendent Primary Health Centre Pawai, Azamagarh stating therein that certain deficiencies have been found in the case of compassionate appointment of the petitioner. The deficiencies have been stated in the letter. The copy of the letter is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. vide letter dated 10.6.2011 the Director General Family Welfare U.P., Lucknow wrote a letter to the Chief Medical Officer, Azamgarh, returned the application of the petitioner in original to re-submit again after fulfilling the requirements stated therein. vide letter dated 28/30.8.2011 the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that Sri Shyam Singh, in his affidait dated 6.4.2010, has accepted that she has now been married and, therefore, the petitioner does not fall within definition of ‘family’ and accordingly the application has been rejected.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counel.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, she was eligible under the Rules as she falls within the definition of ‘family’ as defined under the rule being unmarried daughter. The appliction was kept pending by the respondents for long time for one reason or the other and the same has now been rejected illegally on the ground that the petitioner is married and does not fall within the definition of ‘family’, is not justified. When the application was moved, the petitioner was eligible to be appointed under the Rules, therefore, merely because she married lateron her claim for compasionate appointment cannot be denied.

Reliance has been placed on the following decisions :

1. Allahabad Bank Staff Association U.P. Central Office v. Chairman and M.D., Allahabad Bank, Kolkata, 2010 (4) ADJ 73.

2. Sonam Sharma v. Bank of Baroda, 2010 (9) ADJ 319.

3. Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, 1989(4) SCC 468.

6. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that under Rule 5 of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 on the death of Government servant in harness one member of the family who is not already employed on the application, be given a suitable employment in Government service. The family is defined under Rule 2 (c) of the Rules which includes wife or husband, sons, unamrried and widowed daughters. The married daughter is not included in the family. Therefore, if at the time of giving employment, the claimant does not fall within the defintion of ‘family’, compassionate appointment cannot be given. He submitted that compassionate appointment is the exception to the general rule of recruitment and, therefore, to be construed very strictly. He further submitted that the cases cited by the learned cousnel for the petitioner are not applicable in the present case and are distinguishable.

7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

8. The facts are not in dispute. When the application for compassionate appointment was moved,