Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition as against the action of the respondent of not extending the benefits to the petitioner which was otherwise according to the petitioners was available to the dependents of freedom fighter under the various schemes floated by Government of India and State Government as well under the Act called as “The Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped Dependents of Freedom Fighter and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993”on the premise that the petitioner would not be entitled for the benefit because she happens to be granddaughter (daughters' daughter “Natini”) of the deceased freedom fighter and would not be covered in the definitions of family.

2. The only argument which has been extended by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner since being daughters daughter was a member of the family of deceased freedom fighter, irrespective of the fact that she got married to another person, that ought not deprive the petitioner from availing the benefit under the freedom fighter scheme on the premise that she is married granddaughter of the deceased freedom fighter, on the ground of