Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25912 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3658 of 2025 Petitioner :- Chetana Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. P.W.D. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anuj Dayal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sandeep Sharma, learned Standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. By this petition the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Opposite Parties, specifically opposite party no. 2 and 3, to consider the appointment of the petitioner under Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying- in-Harness Rules, 1974, on account of death of the father of the petitioner/deceased employee on 19/03/2024. ii. Issue any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the circumstances of the instant case. Allow the writ petition with cost." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the late father of the petitioner passed away on 19.03.2024, leaving behind the petitioner and her mother, Smt. Rajeshwari, as his only legal heirs. A succession certificate to this effect, identifying the petitioner and her mother as the sole dependents of the deceased employee, is on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 4. The petitioner was married to one Akash Sharma on 17.01.2017. However, it is submitted that the petitioner’s husband is currently unemployed. Relevant pleadings to this effect are contained in paragraph 6 of the petition. 5. It is further submitted that both the petitioner and her mother were financially dependent on the deceased employee and that neither of them has any independent source of income. The petitioner has made a representation dated 24.07.2024, which is on record as Annexure-2. 6. Pursuant to this representation, the Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department (PWD) sought a legal opinion from the District Government Counsel (Civil), District Barabanki. It was requested to clarify whether, under the amended 1974 Rules, a married daughter of a deceased employee is eligible for compassionate appointment. The DGC Civil opined that the eligibility of a married daughter under the amended rules remains unclear, suggesting that she may not be entitled to such an appointment. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, upon a query made by the Court, apprised the Court that the petitioner’s mother is receiving a family pension. The coordinate Bench of this Court, in Writ-A No. 556 of 2022, Smt. Kavita Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and Others, while relying upon the judgment in Pramod Kumar Rajak vs. Registrar General, High Court Allahabad, 2011 (4) U.P.L.B.E.C. 2692, has reiterated the settled legal position that mere grant of pensionary benefits to a person would not dis-entitle either that person or the family member of the deceased from staking their claim for compassionate appointment. 8. Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of written instructions, has submitted that an opinion was sought by the Executive Engineer from the District Government Counsel (Civil), who opined that the petitioner, being a married daughter, is not eligible for appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has not furnished any documentary evidence to establish that she was financially dependent on her deceased father. Consequently, her claim for compassionate appointment has not been considered. 9. Perused the record. 10. Rule 2(c) of The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (in short hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 1974') provides the definition of the 'family' which includes daughter along with married daughters. Rule 5 of the Rules 1974 provides recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased. Rule 2'c' of the Rules 1974 is extracted below:- "2(c) "family" shall include the following relations of the deceased Government servant: (i)Wife or husband; (ii)Sons; (iii)Unmarried and widowed daughters;" 11. In Writ-A No.60881 of 2015, Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and Another, the coordinate Bench of this Court held that married daughter is entitled for compassionate appointment and the State was required to consider the case of the married daughter and cannot reject on the ground of her marital status. Thus, in view of the judgement of Smt. Vimla Srivastava so also from perusal of the definition of the 'family' under Rule 2 'c' of the Rules 1974 the petitioner is covered under the definition of daughters. The ground taken by the State in the Counter Affidavit in not considering the case of the petitioner on the compassionate ground on the basis of legal opinion given by the DGC Civil, is misconceived. 12. Another ground taken by the State that the petitioner has not provided a certificate to establish her dependency on her deceased father is also without merit and baseless in as much as along with the writ petition, the petitioner has annexed the succession certificate as well as the family register. Succession certificate is sufficient to establish her status as a dependent family member. Moreover, there is no statutory requirement under the 1974 Rules to furnish any additional proof of dependency once such documentary evidence is submitted. Therefore, the objections raised by the State are untenable and misconceived. 13. In the light of above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for being appointed on compassionate ground in place of her deceased father within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Order Date :- 5.5.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench