By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. This special appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.9.2015 passed in Writ petition No. 49766 of 2015 (Mudita v. State of U.P. and another).

3. The appellant seeks appointment on compassionate ground as her mother namely Late Smt. Krishna Pandey who was a Principal of a Primary School died in harness.

4. It is contended by the appellant that she is married and was living with her mother and was financially dependent upon her mother as her husband is unemployed. Apart from the support of her mother, there was no other source of livelihood of the appellant. The request of the appellant was rejected vide order dated 27.7.2015. This order was challenged in the writ petition which was dismissed by holding that the married daughter cannot claim compassionate appointment. Her claim cannot be equated with the right of a woman in ancestral property hence this appeal.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the Writ Court has adopted a technical approach and failed to consider that the appellant was fully dependent upon her deceased mother. She was left with no means of livelihood after the death of her mother.

6. Considering these contentions and the documents on record, it is noteworthy that no proof of dependency of the appellant upon the deceased-employee is on record. Certain letters of Sabhasad and President of Nagar Palika Parishad have been filed by the appellant to put forth her claim that she was living with her mother at the time of her death. There is no evidence that the appellant was living with her mother and was dependent upon her.

7. The appointment on compassionate ground are in the nature of exceptions and cannot be treated as a source of employment. A daughter, son or any member of the “family” of deceased-employee as defined under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servant Dying-in-harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1974) is entitled for consideration for compassionate appointment only if it is established that such applicant was wholly dependent upon the deceased-employee and had no source of income. The appellant herein is a married woman. Her date of marriage is not on record. It is also not on record that since when the appellant was residing with her mother after her marriage and how she was dependent upon her mother. The fact of unemployment of the husband of the appellant though stated in one of the paragraphs of the writ petition but is not supported by any cogent evidence. There is no affidavit of the appellant’s husband to the effect that he is unemployed.

8. Moreover, under the Scheme of Dying-in-harness Rules, the word “family” has been defined in Section 2(c) of the Rules, 1974, which does not include married daughter:

“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:

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

9. A Full Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 1343 of 2011, Km. Shehnaj Begum v. State of U.P. and others, 2013(5) ADJ 577 (FB) (of which one of us, Sunita Agarwal, J. was a member) has observed that the member of the family of a deceased Government servant can be considered for granting compassionate appointment under the Rules who fulfills other conditions enumerated therein, such members of the family should also be a dependent on the deceased servant. The Full Bench considering the object of the Rules, 1974 has further observed that;-

“The purpose of framing 1974 Rules