Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Counsel, learned Standing for Respondent No. 1 and Sri V.P. Singh for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

2. The petitioner is the daughter of late Shyam Dulari Singh her mother, who was an Assistant Teacher in primary school Kakrahi and died in harness on 12th September, 2009. The petitioner’s father had already died leaving behind her and her mother.

3. The petitioner claimed compassionate appointment on the ground that she is a divorced lady and was dependent on her mother.

4. It is undisputed that the petitioner was divorced on a date, later than the death of her mother in 2010. The petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition No. 35687 of 2012 which was disposed of with a direction upon the Respondent No. 5 to decide the matter of her appointment on compassionate grounds.

5. vide order dated 25.7.2012, the District Basic Education Officer rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that a divorced daughter does not fall within the definition of a dependant. A copy of the order impugned has been annexed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition.

6. Sri Khare has relied upon on the decision in the case of Smt. Kushum Devi v. State of U.P. and others, 2001 (3) ESC 1283, to contend that a divorced daughter would also fall within the definition of the word ‘family’, and the petitioner being a dependent, she was entitled for the benefit of compassionate appointment. Thus it is prayed that the impugned order be quashed.

7. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the Bar that the judgment in the case of Smt. Kushum Devi is still intact.

8. Having perused the relevant Rules and the judgment aforesaid, the Government Order dated 22nd December, 2011 recites the definition of the word family as wife or husband, son/adopted son, unmarried daughters, widowed daughter, widowed daughter-in-law, unmarried brother and sister dependent on the deceased employee and a widowed mother (if the deceased employee had died unmarried). The claim, therefore, has been rejected as a divorced daughter does not fall within the definition of a widowed daughter.

9. The judgment which has been relied upon by Sri Khare, places a divorced daughter at par with a widowed daughter and, according to the interpretation given in paragraph 11 of the said judgment, she was found entitled to get the benefit of the compassionate appointment for the reasons stated in support thereof. As such the petitioner whose case is also on the same footing, is entitled to the same benefit. The Rule is descriptive so as to only include unmarried and widowed daughter, who are eligible and dependant on the deceased employee, for the purpose of seeking compassionate appointment.

10. The Rules under consideration in Kushum Devi’s case (supra) were Rule 2(C) of the 1974 Rules about which reference has been made in the Government Order which is under consideration.

11. A divorced daughter is not included in the list of dependants. In such circumstances by including a divorced daughter also in the Rules would be increasing the ambit of the Rules, which will fall within the realm of legislation and cannot be stretched by judicial interpretation. Accordingly, the reasoning given in the paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the judgment in the case of Smt. Kushum Devi (supra) may require a reconsideration as I am unable to respectfully subscribe to the reasoning given in the aforesaid judgment.

12. Loosing the status of a married daughter upon divorce is by operation of law, recognised on a decree of divorce passed by a Court having competent jurisdiction. The daughter automatically, therefore, does not become dependant upon her parents so long as the decree of divorce is not granted. The dependency of the daughter would therefore directly be dependant upon the decree being granted which in the present case as well as in Smt. Kushum Devi’s case (supra) came to occur later on, much after the