Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or SL. No. Date COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures WPSS/ 862/ 2023 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Akshay Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand.

2. Petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment on account of death of her father was turned down only on the ground that she is a ‘married daughter’. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court, challenging the order dated 08.05.2023, passed by Additional Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Kumaon Region, Haldwani.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court in SPA No. 187 of 2017, wherein it was held that non inclusion of married daughter in the definition of ‘family’ under Rule 2(c) of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of Constitution of India.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that reasoning given in the impugned order that ‘married daughter’ was included in the definition of family as given in the Rules only w.e.f. 04.09.2019 is legally not sustainable as judgment rendered by a constitutional Court is always retrospective, therefore, according to him, it will make no difference as to whether the