Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Kamlesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

2. Short controversy raised in the present writ petition is as to whether the petitioner being a married daughter of the deceased employee has a right for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner is only daughter of her parents and her case is that she is unemployed and was fully dependent upon her father at the time of his death. Her mother i.e. wife of the deceased employee moved an application on 22.2.2012 before the Principal/Chief Superintendent, S.N. Medical College and Hospital, Agra for providing employment to her daughter i.e. petitioner. Reminders were sent by the petitioner and her mother but no decision has been taken and hence this writ petition.

3. In the supplementary-affidavit filed on 17.10.2014, the petitioner sought to submit that she alongwith her husband Bhupendra Sharma is residing at her parental residence and is looking after wife of the deceased(mother of the petitioner) and the entire family.

4. It is also indicated therein that the petitioner’s husband was earlier working in a shoe factory at Agra but on account of fire in the factory in the year 2002, he lost his job and since thereafter her entire family including her husband were fully dependent upon the deceased employee.

5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being married daughter though is not included in the definition of “Family” under Dying-in-Harness Rules, is entitled for consideration for compassionate appointment as she was fully dependent upon her father. Merely because the petitioner is a married daughter, she cannot be refused appointment as it would be violative of Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

6. For awarding compassionate appointment, the ‘dependency’ should be the yardstick and not the marriage of family members of the deceased. Supreme Court has recognized right to employment in case of a married woman as early as in the year 1979 in the case of C.B. Muthamma v. Union of India and others, AIR 1979 SC 1868. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Bombay High Court in Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao v. The State of Maharashtra, LAWS(BOM)-2014-8-68 and Karnataka High Court in R. Jayamma v. Karnataka Electricity Board and another, ILR 1992 KARNATAKA 3416 and Manjula v. State of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Department of Co-operation and another, 2005(104) FLR 271.

7. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has no right for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground as she is not eligible for such appointment being not a dependent family member of the deceased employee. A married daughter is not included in the expression “Family” of the deceased employee and hence there is no merit in the writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.

8. The dependent petitioner is the sole heir of the deceased employee. There are two family members of the deceased employee namely, the petitioner and her mother. Indisputably, the petitioner was married prior to death of her father in the year 2011. It is also apparent from the facts indicated in the writ petition that she was living with her husband till the year 2000 who was working in a shoe factory. The contention is that after the shoe factory was gutted in fire and closed, the entire family of the petitioner namely her husband and two children started living with the deceased employee and were financially dependent upon him. Thus, an effort has been made to carve out an exception to Rule 5 of the 1974 Rules to submit that the petitioner was a dependent daughter of the deceased employee and as she was financially dependent upon her father at the time of his death, she has a claim for consideration for compassionate appointment.

9. It is well-settled that the compassionate appointment is