- (1.) Heard Shri Prabhakar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Santosh Kumar Singh, appearing for the respondent no. 2 and Shri K.K. Rai, learned standing counsel for the respondent no. 1.
(2.) The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 27.7.2015 whereby her claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that she is a married daughter and therefore under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (the Rules, 1974) is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. The fact that the petitioner is a married daughter is not in dispute. Her mother is stated to be the government servant who died while still in service. Under Rule 2(c) of the Rules, 1974 the family has been defined as under: "2(c) "family" shall include the following relations of the deceased Government servant: (i) wife of husband; (ii) sons/adopted sons; (iii) unmarried daughters, unmarried adopted daughters, widowed daughters and widowed daughter-in-law; (iv) unmarried brothers, unmarried sisters and widowed mother dependent on the deceased Government servant, if the deceased Government servant was unmarried; (v) aforementioned relations of such missing Government servant who has been declared as "dead" by the competent court: .......................................".
(3.) Thus the married daughter has specifically been excluded from the scope and ambit of 'family' as defined in Rule 2(c) of the Rules, 1974 and is therefore not entitled to claim appointment on compassionate grounds.;