The central legal point established in the judgment is the unconstitutionality of excluding married daughters from the definition of 'family' for compassionate appointment, emphasizing the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned order dated 11.04.2016 passed by respondent no.2/Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Rae Bareli.

2. The petition also seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds on appropriate post under U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's father Shri Om Prakash was employed in the Irrigation Department in the year 1976 as Roller Operator. After his death on 05.05.1986, her mother Mrs. Chandrawati was appointed as Peon and posted in Sub Division Bachharawan functioning under Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Rae Bareli. Marriage of the petitioner was solemanised with Shri Jitendra Kumar, R/o Village Mankhera, Post Kankaha, District Lucknow. The petitioner's mother died on 12.09.2009. The petitioner's husband is also unemployed and he was also dependent on petitioner's mother (now deceased). After death of the petitioner's mother, the petitioner has no source of income. She applied for appointment on compassionate grounds under U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred as 'dying in harness rules') on 19.11.2009 and when no order was passed, she again applied for the same on 28.09.2012 and 26.10.2012 but again no order was passed on the said applications. The petitioner filed a writ petition bearing No.1328 (SS) of 2015 which was disposed of vide order dated 23.12.2015 with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide petitioner's application for compassionate appointment keeping in mind the law settled. Vide impugned order dated 11.04.2016 (supra), the Executive Engineer rejected the claim of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 11.04.2016 (supra) has been passed by respondent no.2 in utter denial of the verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court passed in several judgments. It is submitted that now the law is settled that under Section 2C of dying in harness rules, the petitioner/married daughter is also included in the 'member of family'. Thus, while passing the impugned order, the concerned authority has not considered the legal position as also not taken into consideration the several judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court from time to time. The impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law settled and deserves to be quashed.

5. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the petition on merit, however has acceded to the legal position laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court.

6. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed by the parties and are available on record.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 have been framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and regulate the grant of compassionate appointment to the members of the family of a government servant who dies in harness. The Rules define the expression "family" to include, among others, "unmarried daughters and unmarried adopted daughters". The Rules also bring sons and adopted sons within the ambit of a family. The eligibility of a son or adopted son is not conditioned by marital status. The challenge in these proceedings is to the stipulation that only an unmarried daughter falls within the definition of the expression "family". as a consequence of the condition, a married daughter ceases to fall within the family of a deceased government servant for the purpose of seeking compassionate appointment.

9. Rule 2(c) of the Dying-in-Harness Rules defines the expr