IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the definition of 'family' in compassionate appointment rules must include widowed daughters-in-law to ensure fairness and address financial distress.

JUDGMENT :

By the Court.-Heard Sri Prashant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. Petitioner is daughter in law of the deceased employee. She filed the present petition for the following relief:

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring Rule 2 (c) (iii) of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (as amended from time to time) as unconstitutional to the extent it creates a distinction between widowed daughters-in-law and those whose spouses are alive but suffering from incapacity;

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the respondent No. 3 rejecting the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

3. The mother-in-law of the petitioner Smt. Kaushalya Tiwari died in harness on 18.1.2022. At the time of her death, she was serving as class IV employee in the office of respondent No. 3. Smt. Kaushalya Tiwari was survived by her son Abhay Kumar Tiwari (husband of the petitioner) and her married daughter Smt. Poonam Tiwari Pandey who is living a prosperous and happy married life in her matrimonial home. The son of Smt. Kaushalya Tiwari i.e. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, met with a severe accident on 7.5.2019 in which he suffered grave injuries resulting in locomotor disability up to 75% and after thorough medical examination, a disability certificate was issued to Abhay Kumar Tiwari was declaring him to have suffered 75% permanent disability and incapable of earning a livelihood owing to his disability.

4. During the lifetime of Smt. Kaushalya Tiwari, she has taken care of her son and the entire family post accident. It is an admitted fact that at the time of her death, she was the sole bread earner of her family and the petitioner and her husband were also totally dependent upon her. By virtue of her sudden demise, there was no other earning member of the family as the husband of the petitioner is incapable of working. Left with no other option, the petitioner has moved an application to consider her case for compassionate appointment under The U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules''). Considering the said application, the third respondent passed an order dated 23.11.2022 rejecting her claim only on the ground that 'daughter-in-law' was not included in the definition of 'family' under the Rules. Questioning the said order, the present petition has been filed.

5. Based on the above facts, after arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner intended to withdraw the first prayer which reads as follows:

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring Rule 2 (c) (iii) of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (as amended from time to time) as unconstitutional to the extent it creates a distinction between widowed daughters-in-law and those whose spouses are alive but suffering from incapacity;

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied on the observations made by the third respondent in the order dated 23.11.2022. In the said order, the third respondent has considered all the relevant facts and also the observations of the Full Bench judgment of this Hon'ble Court in U.P. Power Corporation, Urban Electricity Transmission Division-II, Allahabad v. Urmila Devi, 2011(3) ADJ 432 and also the judgment of Smt. Sharma Devi v. State of U.P. through its Additional Chief Secretary, Food and Civil Supply Lko and others, 2022(3) ADJ 646, as respondents have considered in apprising manner but for the reason that daughter-in-law was not included in the definition of 'family' under Rule 2 (c) of the Rules. To su