SADHANA SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Awadh Narain Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Upendra Singh, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved? by the order dated 3.7.2014 whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that she is? a married daughter of Late Ram Chandar Srivastava, Government Servant.? These facts are not disputed that the father of the petitioner was a Government Servant and working in the office of respondent no.2 as? Office Superintendent? and died while? still in service on 23.9.2011.? The petitioner is a married daughter of Late Ram Chandra Srivastava.? She applied for compassionate appointment and her claim has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the benefit of compassionate appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules 1974 is available only to the wife or husband or son or unmarried daughter or widowed daughter and since a married daughter does not fall under any of these categories, the said benefit of compassionate appointment is not available to the married daughter.?

(3.) Shri Awadh Narain Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that since both sons and daughters have rights of succession into the joint family property of the father, therefore,? the claim of a married daughter cannot be denied for? grant of compassionate? appointment.?