Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

2. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.6.2017 passed by the Chief Medical Officer, Bijnor rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment on the ground that she was not the dependent of the deceased employee who had died on 7.6.2006.

3. The order impugned categorically records that after the death of the deceased employee, his son had claimed for compassionate appointment. The said application was scrutinized by the competent authority and the family members of the deceased employee were certified vide letter dated 30.9.2006. All other family members gave 'No Objection Certificate' in favour of the applicant (son of the deceased employee). Vide letter dated 7.7.2011, the applicant (son of the deceased employee) was informed that he could not be appointed on the post of Junior Clerk/Health Worker (Male) on compassionate ground rather an offer was given for his engagement against a Class IV post. No reply was received pursuant to the said letter and as such no appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 was given.

4. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, it is recorded that at the time of death of the deceased employee, she was married and does not come within the meaning of the "dependent" of the deceased employee under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying-in-Harness) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Rules 1974").

5. The reason given for rejection of claim of the petitioner is sought to be challenged in the present writ petition with the assertion that the petitioner is a 'divorced' daughter as she got a decree of divorce dated 30.11.2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bijnor. On the date of grant of divorce-decree, her claim for compassionate appointment was pending consideration before the competent authority. The Chief Medical Officer, Bijnor has erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that she was a married daughter on the date of death of the employee.

6. Submission is that the "divorced daughter" falls within the definition of "family" being included in "unmarried and widowed daughter" under Rule 2(c)(iii) of the Rules, 1974.

7. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of this court in Roobi Mansoori vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No. 48375 of 2015 to submit that this Court has issued a direction to the State Government to make appropriate amendments in the Dying-in-Harness Rules to include "divorced daughter" as belonging to the "family" of the natural father so as to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment to the "divorced daughter".

8. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, supports the order impugned for the reasoning given therein.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Before going into the merits of the claim of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to go through the provisions of Rules, 1974 and the purpose and intent of the said provision.

10. The object and purpose of Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 as mentioned in the Act is as follows:-

"In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to make the following special rules regulating the recruitment of the dependants of Government servants dying in harness:"

11. The definition of "dependent" has not been provided in the Rules. However, the definition of "family" is inclusive providing the relations of the deceased Government servant who can be considered for appointment on compassionate ground which includes:-

"(c) "family" shall include the following relations of the deceased Government servant;

(i) wife or husband;

(ii) sons/adopted sons;

(iii) unmarried daughters, unmarried adopted daughters, widowed daughters and widowed daughter