1. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 26.06.2013. He was working as peon in Girls Government Higher Secondary School, Tallital, Nainital. The mother of the petitioner submitted a representation on 28.07.2014 before the competent authority to consider the name of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground but no decision had been taken by the respondents. Petitioner approached this Court by way of filing of WPSS No.2331 of 2015 which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take a decision on the representation as expeditiously as possible. The representation was rejected vide order dated 15.01.2016 primarily on the ground that ‘married daughter’ does not fall within the ambit of “Family” as per the Rule 2(c) of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “The Dying in Harness Rules,1974”) adopted by State of Uttarakhand.

2. Ms. Mamta Joshi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Rule 2(c) of the Dying and Harness Rules is arbitrary and unreasonable, since, it excludes the married daughter for getting compassionate appointment after the death of her father. The Dying and Harness Rules is also violative of Articles 14, 15 & 16 of the Constitution of India, since the married son is not excluded but only married daughter is excluded from getting the job on the compassionate ground.

3. Learned State counsel appearing for respondents has supported the Dying and Harness Rules.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record carefully.

5. Petitioner lost her father on 26.03.2013. It is not in dispute that the case of the petitioner was rejected on 15.01.2016 on the ground that married daughter is not included in the definition of the “family” for the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground.

6. There is no intelligible differentia so as to distinguish the married daughter and married son for the purpose of appointment on compassionate ground under Rule 2(c) of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 which provides for the appointment of a person after death of the bread earner.

7. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1987 (2) SCC 278, in the case of “Dr. (Mrs.) Vijaya Manohar Arbat Vs. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai and another” have held that the parents will be entitled to claim maintenance against their daughter, whether married or unmarried under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court have held as under:-

“5. Sub-section (1) of Section 125 confers power on the Magistrate of the First Class to order a person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of some of his close relations like wife, children, father and mother under certain circumstances. It has been observed by this Court in Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi that the object of Section 125 CrPC is to provide a summary-remedy to save dependants from destitution and vagrancy and thus to serve a social purpose.

6. There can be no doubt that it is the moral obligation of a son or a daughter to maintain his or her parents. It is not desirable that even though a son or a daughter has sufficient means, his or her parents would starve. Apart from any law, the Indian society casts a duty on the children of a person to maintain their parents if they are not in a position to maintain themselves. It is also their duty to look after their parents when they become old and infirm.

8. We are unable to accept this contention. It is true that clause (d) has used the expression “his father or mother” but, in our opinion, the use of the word “his” does not exclude the parents claiming maintenance from their daughter. Section 2(y) CrPC provides that words and expressions used herein and not defined but defined in the Indian Penal Code have the meanings respectively assigned to them in that Code. Section 8 of the Indian Penal Code lays down that the pronoun “he” and its derivatives ar