Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—In this writ petition the petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 15.1.1998 passed by District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Fatehpur rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds on the ground that the benefit of U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 does not extend to widowed daughter-in-law and for a further direction to the respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher and to pay the petitioner her regular monthly salary of the said post.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner -Smt. Geeta Srivastava was married to one Anuj Kumar Srivastava son of Late Raj Narain Srivastava. The said Raj Narain Srivastava was employed as an Assistant Teacher in a Junior Basic School run by the Board of Basic Education, U.P. Shri Raj Narain expired while in service. In the meantime Anuj Kumar Srivastava, husband of the petitioner has also expired leaving behind his widow, the present petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment as a widowed daughter-in-law of the deceased employee. Her application was considered and she was given compassionate appointment as an untrained assistant teacher on a consolidated salary of Rs. 850/- per month and she joined in Prathamik Pathshala, Sarai Sayeed Khan, Development Block, Teliyani, Fatehpur. However, when the salary was not being paid to her she filed a writ petition No. 881 of 1998 seeking a direction to the respondents to pay her salary. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pay regular salary to the petitioner from month to month. She was also recommended for under going training at the District Institute of Education and Training, Fatehpur. Her case is that in-spite of the order of this Court she has not been paid her salary. By the impugned order dated 15.1.1998 her appointment has been cancelled on the ground that the benefit of compassionate appointment is not available to a widowed daughter-in-law.

3. I have heard Shri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. The facts arising in this case are not disputed between the parties. The only question now remains is as to whether the appointment of the petitioner could have been cancelled by the impugned order on the ground that the benefit of compassionate appointment would not be available to a widowed daughter-in-law under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974?

5. This controversy had earlier came up for consideration before a learned Singh Judge of this Court and the learned Single Judge interpreting the term ‘family’ in the case in Smt. Amrita Mishra v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(1) ADJ 657 : 2010(1) ESC 773 (All), relying upon a Division Bench decision in the case of Zila Panchayat Kaushambi and others v. Lalti Devi and another, 2008 (2) ADJ 428, has held as under:

“6. Having considered the Rule in question and having perused the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Zila Panchayat, Kaushambi and others v. Lalti Devi and another, 2008 (2) ADJ 428, it is not necessary call for any counter-affidavit on behalf of the State as the said decision squarely covers the case of the petitioner. It has been held by this Court that the word “family” includes the relations as defined therein. According to the Division Bench judgment the said definition is inclusive and to the extent of daughter-in-law is not exhaustive. It has been held that a daughter-in-law who is a widow, is also entitled for compassionate appointment.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Sanyogita Rai v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (5) ADJ 501. The said decision has also been noticed in the judgment of Division Bench referred to hereinabove.

8. Accordingl