Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13373 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2360 of 2021 Petitioner :- Smt. Shikha Dixit Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. Secondary Education And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Arshad Ahsan Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 29.09.2020, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. 3. The grounds as emerge from perusal of the said order for rejection are that (a) either the wife of the deceased employee or his son namely Sri Saurabh Awasthi can be appointed on compassionate ground but both of them have not applied, and (b) the petitioner (who is the married daughter of the deceased employee) does not reside at her paternal house in village Aram Post Akwabad, District Unnao. 4. Learned Standing Counsel states that after the petitioner had earlier approached this Court being aggrieved by an order dated 25.10.2019 whereby the claim of the petitioner, married daughter, had been rejected, this Court vide judgment and order dated 07.01.2020, a copy of which is Annexure-8 to the petition, had quashed the rejection order and had directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and to not exclude the petitioner from consideration solely on the ground of her marital status. 5. Subsequent thereto, the respondents carried out an inquiry from which it emerged that the Pradhan and other villagers of the paternal village of the petitioner stated that the petitioner is not residing with her mother and thus her claim was rejected on the aforesaid grounds. 6. Responding learned counsel for the petitioner states that the best witness to the petitioner residing in the said village would be the mother of the petitioner who herself has given an affidavit dated 10.10.2019, a copy of which is part of Annexure- 9 (Page 77) to the petition, and thus any statement or affidavit or certificate given by the Pradhan indicating that the petitioner is not residing in the concerned village along with her mother would have to give way to the affidavit of the mother. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that as an abundant precaution the petitioner has obtained a certificate from the concerned Pradhan dated 21.12.2024, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure SA-2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 08.01.2025 which states that the petitioner is continuously residing with her mother and is looking after her mother and thus in view of the said certificate it is stated that the very ground on which the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner gets negated. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the averments made in paragraphs 5 to 9 of the supplementary affidavit in pursuance to the query of this Court dated 26.03.2021 to contend that the husband of the petitioner has no independent source of income as one house and some piece of land are in the name of his father and that the petitioner has two children, one son and a daughter, and the father of the petitioner had taken all responsibility of the family of the petitioner after she had come to her paternal home in order to look after her father who was a cancer patient and now her mother is also suffering from cancer. 9. Considering the aforesaid, it is thus apparent that the grounds taken by the respondents while rejecting the claim of the petitioner by means of order impugned gets negated. 10. So far as the ground taken by the respondents that neither the wife of the deceased employee nor his son have applied for compassionate appointment, apart from the fact that there cannot be any compulsion for all the dependents of the deceased employee to apply for compassionate appointment, the other aspect is that the brother of the petitioner namely Sri Saurabh Awasthi has also given an affidavit dated 10.10.2019, a copy of which is part of Annexure-9 (Page 75) to the petition for compassionate appointment of the petitioner in the capacity of she being the eldest daughter of the deceased employee and thus the specific ground as taken by the respondents rejecting claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment also gets negated. 11. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 29.09.2020, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, is quashed. The respondent no.4 i.e. District Inspector of Schools, Unnao is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with law and relevant rules and take a decision in this regard within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 A. Katiyar Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench