Exclusion of married daughters from the definition of family in the Dying-in-Harness Rules was held to be illegal and unconstitutional, and married daughters were found to be entitled to compassionate appointment.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers;

"(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 31.01.2020 (Annexure No.4) passed by respondent No.4 to this writ petition.

(ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner under Dying-in-Harness Rules on suitable post forthwith.

(iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner under Dying-in- Harness Rules on suitable post forthwith.

(iv) Award costs of the petition to the petitioner."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the father of the petitioner late Krishna Kumar Saxena was a regular employee posted as Administrative Officer in the office of P.W.D. and while being in service he died on 15.11.2019 leaving behind the petitioner and her mother Smt. Mamta Saxena, the father of the petitioner was only earning member of the family. The mother of the petitioner is a housewife and she is an old lady.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was married in the year 2009 but being the only heir of late Krishna Kumar Saxena and Smt. Mamta Saxena has been residing with her mother Smt. Mamta Saxena to look after her being an old lady who was suffering from several diseases and after the death of the father, she is the only person to look after her mother.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the mother of the petitioner, thereafter, moved an application on 27.01.2020 before the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner, under the Dying-in-Harness Rules on suitable post. The petitioner is fully qualified to be appointed on Group-C post as she has completed her graduation in the year 2006 in Commerce streame and she is also entitled to get the benefits of Government Orders issued from time to time and the benefits under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the 5. respondent No.4 vide order dated 31.01.2020 rejected the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground only on the ground that the petitioner being a married daughter is not covered under the definition of family under Rule 2(c) of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974, therefore, she is not entitled to be appointed under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 as amended in 2011.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the ground taken by the respondent No.4 while rejecting the application of the petitioner is arbitrary and without application of mind, the petitioner is covered under the definition of family as contemplated under Rule 2(c) of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 and the impugned order was passed totally in mechanical manner.

7. Learned Standing Counsel has countered the arguments advanced by the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for being appointed on compassionate ground as the petitioner is not covered under the definition of family under Rule 2(c) of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974.

8. In reply to the arguments raised by the learned Standing Counsel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Division Bench of this Court has dealt with this controversy and entitled married daughter for compassionate appointment this view is taken by the Court in Special Appeal (D) No.863 of 2015 (Neha Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and another) and was pleased to hold that exclusion of married daughters from the ambit of the expression family in Rule 2(c) of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servant Dying-in- Harness Rules, 1974 is illegal and unconstitutional. It was furt