Saurabh Lavania, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Anand Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri O.P. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent.
(2.) Under appeal is the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 27.08.2018 in the Writ Petition No. 23906 (S/S) of 2018 whereby, the learned Single Judge after holding that the petitioner (respondent in appeal) is entitled to compassionate appointment by virtue of being the dependent/divorced daughter of the deceased and, after holding the same, directed the respondent No. 3 in writ petition to grant appointment to the petitioner (respondent in appeal) on compassionate ground within a period of two weeks.
(3.) Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal has been preferred on the main grounds to the effect that the Hon'ble Single Judge while allowing the Writ Petition has failed to appreciate the following two aspects of the case:- (i) Divorced daughter is not included as dependant under Rule 2 (c) of U.P. Recruitment of Dependant of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (in short "Rules of 1974") and (ii) The judgment passed in Neha Srivastava's case wherein it has been held that married daughter comes in the ambit of the expression ''family member' under the Rules of 1974 has been stayed by Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 13886 of 2016 on 29.07.2017.;