Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) THIS intra -court appeal under the Rules of Court is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.5.2015 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the claim of the petitioner -appellant for grant of compassionate appointment on the ground that the married daughter was not included in the definition of 'Family'.
(2.) UNDISPUTED facts are that the petitioner -appellant is married daughter of one Brij Gopal Sharma, who was working on the post of Lekhpal in Tehsil Sarila Dando, district Hamirpur and died in harness on 27.4.2014. The appellant made an application in the prescribed format seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The mother of the petitioner submitted an affidavit dated 5.11.2014 alleging that she is unable to work due to illness and therefore, her daughter may be granted compassionate appointment in place of her husband. The application of the petitioner was considered by the respondent No. 3 and vide order dated 31.3.2015 the same was rejected on the ground that being married daughter she was not included in the definition of 'Family' under the Dying -in -Harness Rules, 1974 (in short 'Rules 1974'). Learned single Judge vide judgment and order dated 28.5.2015 dismissed the writ petition holding that since married daughter is not included in the definition of 'Family' under the Dying -in -Harness Rules, 1974, the petitioner was not entitled for consideration.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant cannot be discriminated on the ground of being married as she is the only issue of her parents. It is further submitted that marriage cannot be a disqualification in the matter of appointment of a daughter on compassionate ground and there is no justifiable basis to exclude a married daughter from giving compassionate appointment. It is also submitted that exclusion of a married daughter from the definition of 'Family' under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant Dying -in -Harness Rules, 1974 fortifies reasoning that there is discrimination and indifference towards the weaker sex in framing laws. In support of the contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on two judgments Bombay High Court; Smt. Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao v. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 5592 of 2009), : Laws (Bom) -2014 -8 -68 and another in Aparna Narendra Zambre v. Assistant Superintendent Engineer & others (Writ petition No. 1284 of 2011), 2011(5) Mh.L.J. 290.;