HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 23109 of 2018 Court No. - 33 HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. Present writ petition has been filed questioning the order dated 9.6.2017 passed by respondent no.2. 3. Petitioner being married daughter, her case was rejected stating that married daughter is not included in the definition of family. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition has been filed. 4. While considering the submissions, this Court has passed following order on 29.10.2018: "The issue, as to whether a married daughter would be covered under the definition of "family" for grant of compassionate appointment, is already engaging attention of the Apex Court after the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and Others (Writ A No. 60881 of 2015), vide judgment dated 04.12.2015, had declared the definition of "family" in rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1974 to be ultra virus, to the extent it excluded a married daughter from the definition. The Special Leave Petition has been entertained and an interim order is stated to be operative. This petition is, therefore, adjourned cine die. Liberty stands reserved to the petitioner to move an application after the issue is resolved by the Apex Court." 5. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the orders passed by this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 863 of 2015. The said special appeal was allowed with following observation: "As indicated above, the coordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Vimla Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Anr. (Supra) while proceeding with the matter had held that the exclusion of married daughters from the ambit of 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. The Court had also struck down the word 'unmarried' in Rule 2 (c) (iii) of the Dying-in-Harness Rules and proceeded to direct the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dinesh Chandra Mishra, Pragati Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Sitara Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) respondent authorities to consider the claim of the applicant on the basis of all relevant facts and circumstances and directed that her right could not be excluded from consideration only on the ground of their marital status. As the coordinate Bench of this Court has also decided the question, the same is binding on us and holds the field. The judicial propriety demands that the same view be followed by the coordinate Benches. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the order impugned passed by learned Single Judge cannot sustain and is accordingly set aside. Consequently, it is directed that the competent authority would be at liberty to consider the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner on the basis of all the relevant facts and circumstances and the petitioner shall not be excluded from consideration for compassionate appointment only on the ground of her marital status. " 6. As against the same, State has filed Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 22646 of 2016, which was dismissed upholding the observations made by the Division Bench that married daughter is also entitled for compassionate appointment as per the provisions of U.P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servant Dying-in-harness Rules, 1974. 7. In view of the abovesaid legal position settled by the Division Bench, this writ petition is also allowed. The order dated 9.6.2017 passed by respondent no.2 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondents to reconsider the issue as per the observations made by the Division Bench in the abovesaid special appeal. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date receipt of certified copy of this order. October 8, 2025 Noman WRIA No. 23109 of 2018 2 (Donadi Ramesh,J.) Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad