The main legal point established is that the decision on compassionate appointment should be based on the overall welfare of the family and the greater financial hardship faced by the claimants, in accordance with Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servants dying-in-harness Rules, 1974.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

2. Since both the petitions involve same cause of action, they are being disposed of by means of a common judgment.

3. Writ-A No. 4493 of 2023 has been filed by widowed daughter-in-law of the deceased challenging order dated 22.05.2023 whereby her claim for compassionate appointment under the U.P. Government Servants dying-in-harness Rules, 1974 has been rejected.

4. Writ-A No. 7492 of 2023 has been filed by the unmarried son of deceased for a direction to opposite parties to appoint him on compassionate basis under the aforesaid Rules of 1974.

5. Learned counsel appearing for widowed daughter-in-law submits that her husband late Rajneesh Kumar pre-deceased her father-in-law late Ram Chandra and thereafter petitioner was fully dependent upon her father-in-law. It is submitted that petitioner also has two minor children aged 7 and 4 years and in terms of amendments incorporated in the year 2001 vide notification dated 12.11.2021 in the Rules of 1974, widowed daughters-in-law are now also included under the definition of 'family' as per Rule 2 (c) of the Rules of 1974.

6. It is submitted that petitioner being the widowed daughter-in-law of deceased and being covered under the definition of family under the aforesaid Rules is facing greater hardship than the son of deceased since she also has to take care of her two minor children. It is submitted that while passing the impugned order, opposite parties have not at all complied with Rule 7 of the Rules of 1974 and petitioner's application for compassionate appointment has been rejected only on the ground that the son would have primacy over the widowed daughter-in-law as also on the ground that the widow and daughter of deceased had given a no objection certificate in favour of the son.

7. Learned counsel for appearing on behalf of son of deceased in Writ-A No. 7492, on the other hand submits that the son is required to be granted primacy in consideration for compassionate appointment since he is indicated under Rule 2 (c) (ii) whereas the widowed daughters-in-law are covered under Rule (iii) of the aforesaid Rule. It is submitted that petitioner also does not have any other means to sustain himself and was fully dependent upon his father and therefore he is required to be granted primacy for compassionate appointment as has been correctly indicated in the order impugned in Writ-A No. 4493 of 2023.

8. Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties as on the other hand submitted that in case there are more than one claimants for compassionate appointment, the provision under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1974 is required to be followed as has been done in the present case and particularly in view of the fact that no objection certificates were granted in favour of the son of deceased by the mother and sister.

9. Upon consideration submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is quite evident that the claim of widowed daughter-in-law has been rejected on the twin grounds that a son is required to be given primacy for compassionate appointment in view of his being covered under Rule 2 (c) (ii) whereas widowed daughter-in-laws are covered under Clause (iii) as also the fact that no objection certificates have been issued in favour of the son by his mother and sister.

10. It is admitted between the parties that as yet no compassionate appointment has been provided to the son either till date.

11. Considering the aforesaid facts, it is evident that in case there has more than one member of the family of deceased claiming compassionate appointment, the procedure as indicated in Rule 7 of the Rules of 1974 is required to be followed whereby decision has to be taken keeping in view the overall interest of the welfare of entire family, particularly the widow and minor members thereof.

12. In the present case, the impugned order does not at all advert to