(1.) Order dated January 25, 2021 passed by learned Single Judge has been challenged by the State by filing the present intra-Court appeal.
(2.) The respondent had approached this Court challenging the order dated September 1, 2017, whereby the order of her appointment on compassionate basis was cancelled on the ground that she had concealed the factum of her being married at the time of initial appointment.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the appellants, submitted that it is a case where respondent had concealed the factum of her being married at the time of the compassionate appointment, hence there being concealment of fact, her appointment is liable to be cancelled. Relying upon Rule 2(c)(iii) of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), it is submitted that married daughter is not included in the definition of the "family". That being so, the appointment granted to the respondent on compassionate basis was liable to be withdrawn. As such, there was no error in the order withdrawing compassionate appointment granted to the respondent and learned Single Judge has wrongly quashed the same.