Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:67141 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 55824 of 2016 Petitioner :- Smt. Shivani Tyagi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Vindhya Vashini Prasad Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shiv Nath Singh(Senior Adv.) Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Heard Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vindhya Vashini Prasad Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The present writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 29.08.2016 passed by the 4th respondent and consequential direction to the respondents to consider claim of the petitioner under Dying-in-Harness Rules in accordance with law. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner, who was working as physical education teacher, died on 12.11.2013 leaving behind his wife Savita Rani Tyagi, son Kamal Kant Tyagi, daughters Himani Tyagi and Shivani Tyagi (petitioner herein). 4. All the members of the family unanimously decided to make an application for employment under Dying-in-Harness scheme by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner moved an application on 19.11.2015 before the 4th respondent along with requisites papers. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is having all requisite qualifications to consider her case in any post in the Institution under the said scheme. The said application of the petitioner along with educational qualification records were also forwarded by the Management Shambhu Dayal Inter College Ghaziabad. 5. While pending application, the petitioner got married on 05.03.2016. Surprisingly, the respondents rejected claim of the petitioner vide order dated 29.08.2016 for appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules only on the ground that she is not qualified to be appointed as assistant teacher since she is married. Under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, the married daughter is not included in the definition of the family. Hence the present writ petition. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the issue involved in the present case has already been decided by the division Bench of this Court in batch of writ petitions in the case of Vimla Srivastava Vs.State of U.P. and another 2015 0 Supreme (All) 1477, this Court has considered the Rules 2 (c) and 5 of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 and has held in paragraph nos.22 and 23 as also finally in paragraph no.26 of the said judgment which are reproduced herein under : "22. Specifically in the context of compassionate appointments various High Courts have taken the view that a woman who is married cannot be denied entry into service on compassionate appointment merely on the ground of marriage. This view was taken by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Manjula vs. State of Karnataka 2005 (104) FLR 271. The same view has been adopted by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Smt. Ranjana Murlidhar Anerao vs. The State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No.5592 of 2009, decided on 13 August, 2014, where it was held that the exclusion of a married daughter for the grant of a retail kerosene license on the death of the license holder was not justifiable. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held as follows: "This exclusion of a married daughter does not appear to be based on any logic or other justifiable criteria. Marriage of a daughter who is otherwise a legal representative of a license holder cannot be held to her disadvantage in the matter of seeking transfer of license in her name on the death of the license holder. Under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India the right of a citizen to carry on any trade or business is preserved. Under Article 19(6) reasonable restrictions with regard to professional or technical qualifications necessary for carrying on any trade or business could be imposed. Similarly, gender discrimination is prohibited by Article 15 of the Constitution. The exclusion of a married daughter from the purview of expression "family" in the Licensing Order of 1979 is not only violative of Article 15 but the same also infringes the right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution." 23. The same view has been adopted by a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in S Kavitha vs. The District Collector, Writ Petition No.16153 of 2015, decided on 9 June, 2015. A learned Single Judge of the Kolkata High Court in Purnima Das vs. The State of West Bengal, Writ Petition No.33967 (W) of 2013 decided on 19 March, 2014, has held that while appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right, at the same time, it was not open to the State to adopt a discriminatory policy by excluding a married daughter from the ambit of compassionate appointment. 26. In conclusion, we hold that the exclusion of married daughters from the ambit of the expression "family" in Rule 2 (c) of the Dying-in-Harness Rules is illegal and unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution." 7. Learned Standing Counsel has conceded with regard to observations made by the division Bench for reconsideration of claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 8. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perusal of the orders passed by the division Bench of this Court in the case of Vimla Srivastava (supra), the present writ petition is also disposed of directing the respondents to reconsider the application of the petitioner once again without rejecting claim of the petitioner on the ground of 'married daughter' and this exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 rkg (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad