Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—Heard Shri Prabhakar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Santosh Kumar Singh, appearing for the respondent No. 2 and Shri K.K. Rai, learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 1.

2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 27.7.2015 whereby her claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that she is a married daughter and therefore under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (the Rules, 1974) is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. The fact that the petitioner is a married daughter is not in dispute. Her mother is stated to be the Government servant who died while still in service. Under Rule 2(c) of the Rules, 1974 the family has been defined as under:

“2(c) “family” shall include the following relations of the deceased Government servant:

(i) wife of husband;

(ii) sons/adopted sons;

(iii) unmarried daughters, unmarried adopted daughters, widowed daughters and widowed daughter-in-law;

(iv) unmarried brothers, unmarried sisters and widowed mother dependent on the deceased Government servant, if the deceased Government servant was unmarried;

(v) aforementioned relations of such missing Government servant who has been declared as “dead” by the competent Court:

.......................................”.

3. Thus the married daughter has specifically been excluded from the scope and ambit of ‘family’ as defined in Rule 2(c) of the Rules, 1974 and is therefore not entitled to claim appointment on compassionate grounds.

4. A married daughter’s claim to compassionate appointment cannot be equated with the right in ancestral property of a woman alongwith her brothers for the simple reason that under the scheme of compassionate appointment such an appointee is required to look after and take care and maintain the family of the deceased Government servant upon whom a debilitating financial crises devolves upon his sudden death. The married daughter is a part of the family of her husband which may or may not include her in-laws. She would ordinarily be expected to augment the family income of her husband and/or his parents and sibling/s. It would be least expected in such circumstances that after obtaining the compassionate appointment the married daughter would continue to provide a substantial portion of her income for the maintenance of her own family i.e. family of the deceased Government servant. To illustrate, if compassionate appointment would be the cake the married daughter would not be taking only a slice of her share but would take the cake itself leaving nothing for the family of the deceased Government servant and, therefore, the appointment on compassionate ground to a married daughter cannot be justified or treated at par with the married daughter’s right to property or her right to inheritance in her paternal property.

5. In this view of the matter, the petitioner admittedly being the married daughter is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground as she does not fall within the definition of word ‘family’ under the Rules, 1974.

6. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.