Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) PETITIONER 's claim for compassionate appointment has been negative by the Respondents by means of the impugned order only on the ground that in the definition of 'family', under Rule 2C of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "1974 Rules"), the daughter -in -law in not included.
(2.) THIS issue has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Zila Panchayat, Kaushambi and Anr. v. Lalta Devi and Anr., 2008 (2) ADJ 428 where the Court in Para 6 of the judgment held as under: In this view of the matter, the daughter -in -law, who becomes a member of the family of her husband, in our view, is included in the definition of 'family' of father -in -law and after his death, in the absence of any other legal heir, she is entitled to claim compassionate appointment provided all other conditions as required in law for such recruitment are fulfilled. We make it clear that the aforesaid right of daughter -in -law would not be available, if she has remarried or repatriated to her parents place and in such case the position would be different. However, we need not to go into this aspect further in detail since the Hon'ble Single Judge vide judgment under appeal has passed an innocuous order directing the Petitioners to consider the claim of Respondent No. 1 in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge in Sanyogita Rai v. State of U.P. 2006 (2) UPLBEC 1972. Learned Counsel for the Appellants could not point out on facts, that the aforesaid judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. Thus, we do not find any legal or factual error in the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge. Same view was taken earlier also by Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Rajendra Kumar and Ors., 1990 All.C.J. 545, Manoj Kumar Saxena v. District Magistrate Bareilly and Ors., 2000 (2) ESC 967 and Urmila Devi v. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., 2004 (2) ESC 180 with which the Court has expressed its agreement in Zila Panchayat v. Lalta Devi (supra). This has been reiterated by another Hon'ble Judge of this Court in Sanyogita Rai v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2006) 2 UPLBEC 1972 and the judgment in Sanyogita Rai (supra) has been followed in Anjana Shukla v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2009 (1) ESC 495.
(3.) IN view of above, the order impugned in this writ petition cannot sustain. Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Impugned order dated 16.10.2007 (Annexure 4 to writ petition) is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to re -consider the matter in view of the decisions of this Court in above judgments and pass a fresh order in accordance with law within one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order and, in case, it is found that Petitioner satisfies other requisite conditions under 1974 Rules, pass order of appointment without any further delay.;