IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 does not disqualify a married daughter from seeking compassionate appointment solely based on her marital status.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the respondent No.3, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. Further prayer is for a mandamus commanding the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the case set forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner's father namely Shri Om Prakash Tiwari, while working on the post of Driver in the office of Executive Engineer, Sinchai Khand, Lucknow, died in harness on 18.05.2019 leaving behind his widow namely Smt. Uma Tiwari, a married son namely Rahul Tiwari and two married daughters namely the petitioner and Smt. Pratibha Tiwari.

4. The petitioner staked her claim for compassionate appointment under the provisions of U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1974). The claim of the petitioner was rejected vide orders dated 15.02.2020 and 11.03.2020 on the ground that she being a married daughter is not entitled for being appointed on compassionate grounds under the provisions of the Rules, 1974.

5. A challenge was raised to both the orders by filing Writ Petition No.12052(S/S) of 2020 in Re: Smt. Kavita Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and Others and writ Court, vide order dated 30.07.2020, a copy of which is annexure 7 to the petition, set aside both the orders and required the competent authority to reconsider the claim of the petitioner afresh. The said judgment was passed considering the judgment of this Court passed in Writ A No.60881 of 2015 decided on 04.12.2015 and the Special Leave to Appeal against which had also been dismissed.

6. Incidentally, Writ A No.60881 of 2015 in Re: Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and Another, a copy of the judgment which has been annexed as annexure No.8 to the petition, pertains to a judgment of this Court whereby this Court had also held a married daughter to be entitled for compassionate appointment and the State was required to consider the case of a married daughter and to not reject the same solely on the ground of her marital status.

7. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner again staked her claim for being appointed on compassionate grounds, which has been rejected vide order impugned dated 25.10.2021, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that a perusal of the order impugned would indicate that the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment primarily on three grounds namely (a) that as per the judgment of Division Bench of this Court passed in Special Appeal No.223 of 2021 in Re: State of U.P. and Another Vs. Madhavi Mishra and Others, a married daughter is not entitled for compassionate appointment and would be said to be dependent on her husband (b) two brothers of the petitioner are working on the post of Lekpal and (c) the mother of the petitioner is receiving pension every month and has also received the GPF amount.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, another ground has been taken in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner was not dependent on her father.

10. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that so far as the judgment is concerned, over which reliance has been placed by the respondents while rejecting the claim of the petitioner i.e. in the case of Madhavi Mishra (supra), the same does not pertain to the Rules, 1974 and as such, has no applicability to the facts of the present case, more particularly, when the petitioner has staked her claim for compa