O R D E R (ORAL)

The present OA has been filed by the applicant, seeking the following relief:

“(i) To recall the letters dated 10.02.2021 and 01.11.2021 issued by respondent no. 2.

(ii) To direct the Respondents to consider the appointment of the Applicant on compassionate grounds to the post of her father late Shri Mahipal.

(iii) Pass any other or further orders, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. Brief facts of the case are the applicant's father, Mr. Mahipal, held a Group D post with respondent No. 2 and unfortunately passed away on 21.03.2022 while in service. The applicant's mother made a representation on 14.09.2020 for the compassionate appointment of the present applicant. However, in response dated 10.02.2021, the respondents informed the applicant's mother that the applicant, being a married daughter, did not fall under the category of a dependent family member. Additionally, they stated that there was no vacancy for compassionate appointment at that time for consideration of her case.

2.1. On 16.07.2021, the applicant's mother submitted a representation to the Secretary DOP&T, requesting reconsideration of the compassionate appointment for her daughter. She cited the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in WP (C) No. 10928/2020, challenging the Rule 2(C) of the UP Government for “dying in harness”, which excluded married daughters for compassionate appointments. This matter was further challenged by the UP Government in SLP No. 22646/2016 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court which dismissed the said appeal. Referring to the Allahabad High Court's decision, the applicant requested the Secretary DOP&T to reconsider her case for compassionate appointment.

2.2. In response, vide letter dated 01.11.2021, respondent No. 2 reiterated their earlier position, stating that a suitable reply had already been given on 10.02.2021. Aggrieved by this response, the applicant filed the present OA, seeking the relief mentioned.

3. Notices were issued to the respondents, who have filed their counter-reply. The applicant has also filed a rejoinder to the counter-

reply of the respondents.

3.1. The learned counsel for the applicant reiterated the decision of the Allahabad High Court in WP (C) No. 10928/2020, upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 22646/2016. He argued that the initial response by the respondents on 10.02.2021 is illegal, as a married daughter can also be a dependent family member. He referred to the Handbook of DOPT of 2013, specifically Chapter 9, which provides details and guidelines regarding compassionate appointments. He refers pare 2^nd of the said under clause 9.1.1, which reads as follows:

“"Dependent Family Member" means, (a) spouse; or (b) son (including adopted son); or(c) daughter (including adopted daughter); or (d) brother or sister in the case of unmarried Government servant or (e) member of the Armed Forces who was wholly deperident on the Government servant/ member of the Armed Forces at the time of his death in harness or retirement on medical grounds, as the case may be.”

4. These guidelines have been identically retained in DOPT guidelines dated 02.08.2022. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that, according to the definition of a dependent family member, a married daughter is not excluded from being considered for compassionate appointment. The fundamental factor is the dependency of married daughter on the government servant at the time of death of the government servant. Therefore, he argues that the reply given by respondent No. 2 on 10.02.2020 is contrary to the guidelines of the DOP&T. Furthermore, he asserts that, as already held in the Allahabad High Court judgment cited above, both married and unmarried daughters have an equal right to be considered for compassionate appointment.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents states that the compassionate appointment are governed by the DOPT guidelines of 2013 and 2022. He avers that Compassio