Irshad Ali, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 6.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner was constable, who died while in service on 31.7.2011. The father of the petitioner was having two wives and the petitioner is the daughter of second wife. In the present writ petition, it has been stated that there was a settlement between the two wives with the help of remaining family members that the retiral dues including pension will be given to the fist wife and the appointment under dying-in-harness Rules shall be given to the petitioner, who is daughter of the second wife. Accordingly, the petitioner claimed for appointment under dying-in-harness rules and in this regard no objections were filed by other family members of the family of the deceased father. The application moved by the petitioner, who is unmarried daughter of the second wife has been rejected vide impugned order dated 4.4.2018 on the ground that the petitioner is daughter of second wife and under dying-in-harness Rules, 1974 as amended up to the date no benefit of compassionate appointment is to be provided to the heirs of the second wife of the deceased employee.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no dispute that the petitioner is the daughter of second wife of the deceased employee late Shiv Kumar Singh. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that whatever may be the fate of the second marriage and its validity, as far as the children born out of the said marriage are concerned, they are legitimate children, therefore, the petitioner falls within the definition of 'Family' as contained in Rule 2(c). Therefore, impugned order suffers from manifest error of law and is liable to be set aside.;