- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.
(2.) The petitioner is the married daughter of late Devendra Kumar Saxena, who died-in-harness. The contest arose with regard to appointment on compassionate basis after the death of Devendra Kumar Saxena between the petitioner, her sister and the respondent No. 5, who claims herself to be the wife of Devendra Kumar Saxena. The petitioner and her sister disputed the status of the respondent No. 5 as the legally wedded wife of late Devendra Kumar Saxena and ultimately the appointment, which was offered to the respondent No. 5, was cancelled. The petitioner also claimed compassionate appointment. The same has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner is the married daughter of late Devendra Kumar Saxena and, therefore, she is not entitled to be offered appointment keeping in view the provisions of 1974 Rules. The petitioner, being a married daughter, was not entitled for such appointment as per the Rules itself.
(3.) Apart from this, even a divorced daughter is not entitled to such benefit as has been held by this Court in the case of Santwana Kumari v. D.I.O.S., Ghazipur and Anr., 1998 1 AWC 227(NOC) , followed in Akhilesh Tewari v. State and Ors., 2006 4 AWC 3324. There are contrary decisions as well in the case of Smt. Kushum Devi v. State and Ors., 2001 3 ESC 1283 : and V. Shanthi v. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board., 2001 3 AWC 2374 Writ Petition No. 28395 of 2005, decided on 22.11.2007. The heirs other than those, who fall within the Rules, are excluded as explained in the Division Bench Judgment of Patna High Court in the case of Smt. Malti Kumari v. State of Bihar, 2001 2 BLJR 1290 (DB).;