Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80798 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8196 of 2017 Petitioner :- Chanda Devi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Chandra Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Krishna Gupta Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Puneet Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri A.C. Srivastava, learned Additional C.S.C. for State. 2. This is second round of litigation. The petitioner has earlier approached this Court by way of Writ A No. 26374/2016 with a prayer to consider his application for compassionate appointment. Said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 30.05.2016 to consider her claim afresh. 3. In pursuance of above order, claim of petitioner was considered afresh, however, it was rejected by impugned order dated 27.12.2016 on a ground that at relevant time, a married daughter was not included in definition of family. 4. Aforesaid order is impugned in this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel submits that subsequently, a judgment was passed by Division Bench of this Court in case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ C No. 60881/2015 decided on 04.12.2015 whereby word "unmarried" in Rule 2(c)(iii) of Dying in Harness Rules was struck down and accordingly, married daughter was also included in definition of family and her claim can be considered if she was dependent upon deceased employee. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner's husband is unemployed and she was staying along with her parents and she was dependent on them. 7. Per contra, learned Additional C.S.C. has opposed above submissions and submits that since petitioner's father died on 08.11.2014 i.e. about 11 years ago, therefore, at this belated stage, claim of petitioner cannot be considered. 8. I have considered submissions and perused record. 9. So far as claim of petitioner being married daughter for compassionate appointment would be maintainable or not, Court takes note of Smt. Vimla Srivastava (supra) and word "unmarried" has already been struck down, therefore, petitioner would fall within definition of family. 10. Now second question is whether petitioner has prima-facie able to place case that after marriage, her husband is still unemployed and after her marriage, she remained dependent upon her father. 11. Averments made in this regard are vague in nature. No document in support of claim that petitioner's husband is not working and is unemployed was placed on record, such as passbook or any other document. 12. In aforesaid circumstances, since Court is not convinced that petitioner was dependent on deceased employee, therefore, submissions of learned Additional C.S.C. that at this belated stage i.e. after about 11 years, purpose of compassionate appointment to tide over immediate financial crisis is now not available is taken note of and, therefore, at this belated stage, very object of compassionate appointment is not available. 13. In view of above, Court does not find any reason to grant relief to petitioner or to interfere with impugned order. Accordingly, writ petition lacks merit, hence, dismissed. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Sinha_N. Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad