Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard Sri Anand Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri O.P. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent.

2. Under appeal is the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 27.08.2018 in the Writ Petition No. 23906 (S/S) of 2018 whereby, the learned Single Judge after holding that the petitioner (respondent in appeal) is entitled to compassionate appointment by virtue of being the dependent/divorced daughter of the deceased and, after holding the same, directed the respondent No. 3 in writ petition to grant appointment to the petitioner (respondent in appeal) on compassionate ground within a period of two weeks.

3. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal has been preferred on the main grounds to the effect that the Hon'ble Single Judge while allowing the Writ Petition has failed to appreciate the following two aspects of the case:-

(i) Divorced daughter is not included as dependant under Rule 2 (c) of U.P. Recruitment of Dependant of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (in short "Rules of 1974") and

(ii) The judgment passed in Neha Srivastava's case wherein it has been held that married daughter comes in the ambit of the expression ''family member' under the Rules of 1974 has been stayed by Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 13886 of 2016 on 29.07.2017.

4. The facts in brief as appear from the record of the appeal are that the petitioner (respondent in appeal) is the divorced daughter of the deceased namely, Smt. Laxmi Srivastava who was posted as Headmaster in Kanya Primary School, Ramnagar Chetra, District Unnao and the divorce was granted on 08.03.2013, as appears from the order dated 08.03.2013 which is on record as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. The mother of the petitioner (respondent in appeal) expired on 13.05.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner (respondent in appeal) applied for compassionate appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher. For the purposes of the said appointment, counseling was held on 26.10.2017 and in the said counseling, the petitioner (respondent in appeal) appeared before the Committee and despite having completed all requisite formalities was not offered the appointment because of which, the petitioner (respondent in appeal) filed the Writ Petition No. 2777 (S/S) of 2018 which was disposed of by this Court on 31.01.2018 with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner (respondent in appeal). Thereafter, the order dated 11.07.2018 was passed by the opposite party No. 3. The order dated 11.07.2018 was challenged by the petitioner (respondent in appeal) in the writ petition in which the judgment under appeal dated 27.8.2018 has been passed. Vide order dated 11.07.2018, the case of the petitioner/respondent was rejected on the ground that a divorced daughter is not included under Rule 2 (c) of the Rules of 1974.

5. In the writ petition, the order has been challenged on the main ground to the effect that according to the verdict of this Court reported in (Smt. Kusum Devi v. State of U.P. & Others, (2001) 3 UPLBEC 2431), the petitioner (respondent in appeal) is entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. In the said judgment, this Court has held that a divorced daughter is entitled to compassionate appointment. The relevant Para 10 of the said judgment is quoted below:-

"A divorced daughter, if dependent upon her father, cannot be excluded and has to be included within the meaning of the word ''family' since such a ''divorced daughter', if dependent upon her father, has to be treated at par with an unmarried daughter or widowed daughter as all of them continue to be the liability of their father as member of the family of their ''father'."

6. We have perused the record of the appeal as well as the judgment under appeal dated 27.08.2018.

7. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, has relied upon two judgments of this Court, the same are:-"

(i) Kusum Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P. & others