Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50313 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4342 of 2025 Petitioner :- Pushpendra Gautam Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Savita,Santosh Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Savita, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus to command the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. It is claimed by the petitioner that the petitioner being unmarried brother and fully dependent upon Smt. Ratna deceased employee even though she was married, petitioner would become entitled to compassionate appointment. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for the State states that Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 clearly stipulate vide clause 5 that in the eventuality of one of the spouse being alive and in government service, no compassionate appointment may be offered to any person claiming as dependent. The petitioner's sister having been married to another person, petitioner would not fall within the definition of 'family' and, hence, petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment cannot be directed to be considered as there is no obligation cast upon the authority to decide the claim of such applicant. 4. Meeting the submissions so advanced by learned Standing Counsel, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that even if the brother is unmarried and dependent upon his sister, he would fall under the category of 'dependents'. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, I find that as far as definition clause of Rule 1974 is concerned, it provides for unmarried brother also to be part of family. However, clause 5 of the Rule clearly stipulates that in case of government servant dying in harness, compassionate appointment can be offered to the dependent of the family provided spouse of the deceased is not a government servant. Giving harmonious construction to Clause C-3 of Rule 2 and 5 of Rules, 1974, it can be easily concluded that the dependent of the deceased would continue to remain dependent upon other spouse who is a government employee and that is why the rider has been imposed under Rule 5. Testing the application on touch stone of relevant Rule 5 of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, petitioner can be very well said to be dependent upon husband of his sister provided there are no other children in the family of the deceased employee borne out of the wedlock with her husband. In such circumstances, petitioner can claim maintenance, otherwise, available in law but cannot claim for compassionate appointment. 7. Subject to what has been observed above, petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Deepika Digitally signed by :- DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad