Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:12508 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10461 of 2024 Petitioner :- Smt. Deepika Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Misra,Pratyush Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr Udai Veer Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents No.1 to 3. No notice is being issued to respondent No.4 taking into consideration the nature of order proposed to be passed. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner's mother-in-law namely Smt Sangeeta Bajpai, who was working as Assistant Teacher, died in harness on 23.04.2021. The petitioner's husband namely Shri Nikhil Bajpai applied for compassionate appointment but his claim was rejected by the respondents on 10.04.2023. Even before the petitioner's husband could challenge the said order, he died on 13.05.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner in the capacity of being the widowed daughter-in-law of Smt Sangeeta Bajpai staked her claim for compassionate appointment and the same has been rejected by means of the order impugned dated 10.10.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition. 3. A perusal of the order impugned would indicate that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner's father-in-law is in Government service and thus would not be governed by the provisions of Section 16G for the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1921') read with Regulation 103 of Chapter III of Act, 1921. 4. Contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that admittedly father-in-law of the petitioner, who is a retired employee of U.P. Power Corporation, is in receipt of pension but receipt of pension would by no stretch of imagination fall within the ambit of either of the spouses being employed as has been considered by the respondents inasmuch as the only bar for compassionate appointment would be where either of the spouses is appointed, then the dependent would not be eligible for compassionate appointment. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that this aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in Writ A No.13350 of 2024 In Re Kumari Farha Naseem vs State of U.P. & 2 Ors, decided on 23.09.2024 and while delivering the said judgment reliance has been placed on judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.73 of 2016 In Re Kr Vanshika Nigam vs State of U.P. & 3 Ors, decided on 09.02.2016 wherein this Court has held that the receipt of pension by one spouse cannot be considered that the spouse is in employment. 6. 6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel justifies the impugned order on the basis of averments made in the said order as well as averments made in the counter affidavit. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused of the record, it emerges that after the mother-in-law of the petitioner died on 23.04.2021, her son i.e. husband of the petitioner staked his claim for compassionate appointment which was rejected on 10.04.2023. Even before the said order of rejection could be challenged, the husband of the petitioner died. Thereafter the petitioner staked her claim for compassionate appointment in capacity of being the widowed daughter-in-law of Smt Sangeeta Bajpai i.e. her mother-in-law. Her claim has been rejected by means of the order impugned dated 10.10.2024 primarily on the ground that her father-in-law i.e. husband of Smt Sangeeta Bajpai is drawing pension. 8. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in the case of Kumari Farha Naseem (supra) as well as Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kr Vanshika Nigam (supra) wherein this Court has held that merely because of one of the spouses is drawing pension yet still the adequacy of the means and resources available and the issue of dependency have to be considered by the competent authority. 9. Learned Standing Counsel is unable to persuade the Court to take a difference view that has been taken by this Court in the aforesaid judgments. 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. Order impugned dated 10.10.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, is quashed. Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh keeping in view the discussion made hereinabove. Let such a consideration be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 prateek Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench