The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'family' in the context of compassionate appointment under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants Government Servants Dying in Harness (Ninth Amendment) Rules, 2011.

Anil Kumar, J.

Heard Sri Som Kartik Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Badrul Hassan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for opposite parties no. 1 and 2 and perused the record.

2. Undisputed facts in the present case are that petitioner's father Sri Suresh Nath Mishra ( now deceased) while working on the post of Assistant Teacher in Public Inter College, Sampoorna Nagar Kheri, died during the tenure of his service as such the petitioner, who is married daughter of late Suresh Nath Mishra submitted an application for consideration of her case on compassionate ground before the authority concerned. When no heed has been paid by the official respondents so she approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 6032 (SS) of 2014 ( Neha Mishra Vs. Stte of U.P. And others) , disposed of by order dated 17.10.2014 with the following directions;

"In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh representation alongwith certified copy of this order before respondent no.2, who shall, thereafter, examine the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within next three months. Needless to mention that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner and which shall be examined by respondent no.2, while taking decision in the matter."

3. Thereafter by means of order dated 21.1.2015, opposite party no.2/ District Inspector of Schools, Lakhimpur Kheri rejected the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that petitioner is married daughter of late Suresh Nath Mishra so she does not fall within the definition of family, as per the provisions as provided under Regulation 103 Chapter III of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order submits that the same is contrary to law as laid down by this Court in the case of Soniya Vs. State of U.P. , (2015) 1 UPLBEC, 517 relevant portion is quoted herein below: -

"Merely because a daughter is looking after her parents is not a criteria for grant of compassionate appointment. The object with which a married daughter has been excluded from the expression "Family" is based on an intelligible differentia and the dependency should be a yardstick for consideration of compassionate appointment and is commensurate with the sole object of grant of compassionate appointment. It is in these circumstances, the married daughter has not been included in the expression "Family" under Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974.

However for transfer of retail licence, the criteria is "inheritance" whereas in the matter of grant of compassionate appointment, it is "dependency" and hence ratio of judgment of Bombay High Court(supra) applies in the facts and circumstances of that particular case and is not applicable in the facts of the present case.

So far as the judgments in R. Jayamma(supra) and Manjula (supra) are concerned, it is found that in both the cases, the Karnataka High Court found that the married daughter was financially dependent upon her parents for the reason that in R. Jayamma(supra) the husband of the petitioner (who was a married daughter) has become mentally deranged. In Manjula(supra) the petitioner has become widow after filing of the petition. In paragraph 10 of the judgment in Manjula(supra) it was observed that no married daughter can be denied of an entry into the service on compassionate employment just because she is married. There may be cases whether the married woman may be living with her parents notwithstanding her marriage for various reasons and there may be cases where married women would be dependent on their parents on account of their individual circumstances. Thus, the Court in those cases, may read down the rule of dependency in the facts and circumstances of the case and issue a direction to provide employment to dependent married