Court No. - 36

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4466 of 2020

Petitioner :- Smt. Sangita Yadav

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Avneesh Tripathi,Shikhar Tandon

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

Heard Shri Shikhar Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Standing Counsel for the respondents.

By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the

petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.07.2017, whereby, the

respondent no.3, Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar has rejected the

claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment only on the ground that

the petitioner being married daughter could not fall within the category of

family of the deceased (consisting his dependents) as per the Dying-in-

Harness Rules, 1974.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is married

daughter of the deceased employee and as per Rule 2 (c) (iv) of the

Rules,1974 she comes within the definition of family and is entitled for

compassionate appointment. In support of his contention he relied upon

the division bench judgement of this Court in the case Smt. Vimla

Srivastava v. Stat