Janardan Sahai, Sudhir Agarwal - (1.) -The special appeal is directed against an order of the learned single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition of the respondent and directing her appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules. The father of the respondent was a Government servant. He died in harness on 25.12.93. The respondent made an application for appointment under the U. P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants (Dying-in-Harness) Rules, 1974. Her application was rejected by the appellant on the ground that it was moved beyond the period of five years and also on the ground that at the time of her father's death she was married though she was divorced later on. The order rejecting her claim was challenged by the respondent in writ petition. The learned single Judge by his impugned order dated 20.3.2001 has allowed the writ petition. It has been held by the learned single Judge that there is no difference between the widowed daughter and divorced daughter and the divorced daughter is entitled to the same benefit for appointment on compassionate ground as widowed daughter. This finding is assailed by the learned standing counsel.
(2.) IN order to appreciate the contention it is necessary to refer to the provisions of the U. P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants (Dying-in-Harness) Rules, 1974. Rule 5 of the Rules relates to the recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased. The word "family" has been defined in rule 2 as follows : "2 (c). Family shall include the following relations of the deceased Government servant- (i) Wife or husband ; (ii) Sons ; (iii) Unmarried and widowed daughters, A perusal of the definition indicates that the definition is inclusive and is not meant to cover all the relations of the deceased. IN our opinion the view taken by the learned single Judge upon the point that a divorced daughter stands at par with widowed daughter appears to be correct. The intent of the rule making authorities appears to have been to exclude a married daughter. An unmarried daughter is included in the definition of family. It is after marriage that the daughter becomes a member of another family. A widowed daughter continues to be a member of the family of her marriage in the social sense. However the rule making authorities have included her in the definition apparently because she is a daughter facing hardship and may have to fall back upon her natural family for support. The case of a divorced daughter to be included in the family of her father stands on a better footing than that of a widowed daughter. After divorce the daughter snaps her ties with the family of her marriage. Her family then becomes the family of her father. The purpose of the rule is to give appointment on compassionate grounds. A divorced daughter suffers the same hardship as a widowed daughter and there appears to be no reason why a divorced daughter be not put at par with a widowed daughter for the purpose of compassionate appointment. A divorced daughter would therefore be included within the definition of "family" in its extended sense. On facts however we find that the respondent would not be entitled to any benefit as she was not divorced on the date when the death of her father, a Government servant took place. The copy of the judgment in the divorce petition is on the record. It indicates that the divorce case was filed in the year 1998 and the decree was passed in the year 1999. On the date of death of the Government employee the respondent was not divorced but was a married daughter. It is approximately after six years of the death that the divorce decree was passed. IN this view of the matter, the status of the respondent was not that of a divorced daughter on the date of death of the Government servant. A compassionate appointment is offered to a member of the family to tide over the sudden hardship the family is put to on account of the death of the Government servant. The respondent was divorced six years after the death of her father. Consequently, the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment under Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules. Sri M. C. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent stated that a representation has been made by the respondent to the State Government for relaxing the applicability of Rule 5 so as to apply it to such cases as that of respondent. Be that as it may, since the question about grant of relaxation is not in issue before us, it is not necessary to express any opinion upon the point. The appeal has merit and it is allowed. The order of the learned single Judge is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed.;