JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner’s father died in harness on 20th of March, 1991 leaving behind his widow and the petitioner, who was the unmarried daughter at the time of the death of the father. It is alleged that the petitioner applied on 30th March, 1991 for appointment on compassionate ground, which remained pending, and eventually, by an order dated 21st September, 2005, her application for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. 3. The reason disclosed in the impugned order is that the petitioner had married on 29th of April, 1991, and therefore, a married daughter was not entitled for employment on compassionate ground under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter called the Rules of 1974) since the married daughter was no longer a dependent of the deceased and that the petitioner does not come within the purview of the word ‘family’, as defined under Section 2 (e) of the Rules of 1974. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of the death of the petitioner’s father on 20th March, 1991, she was unmarried and that she got married on 29th of April, 1991, and therefore, she was in the zone of consideration and was a member of the family, and therefore, was entitled to be considered for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules. 5. No doubt, under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974, where a person in service dies in harness, one member of the family who is not employed under Central Government or State Government, could be given a suitable employment. Admittedly, the petitioner was unmarried on the date when the petitioner’s father died, and was a dependent of the deceased and was a member of the family, as defined under Section 2 (c)(ii) of the Rules of 1974. The petitioner, therefore, became entitled for consideration for being appointed under the Dying in Harness Rules. 6. However, in the present case, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief. It is well known that the purpose of the enactment of the Rules of 1974 was to provide immediately appointment where the sole bread earner died, leaving behind his family in a financial crisis. 7. In the present case, the petitioner’s father died on 20th March, 1991. 6. However, in the present case, the petitioner cannot be granted any relief. It is well known that the purpose of the enactment of the Rules of 1974 was to provide immediately appointment where the sole bread earner died, leaving behind his family in a financial crisis. 7. In the present case, the petitioner’s father died on 20th March, 1991. A month thereafter, the petitioner got married and started residing with her husband. The financial crisis, if any, which occurred in the petitioner’s family came to an end when the petitioner got married and started living with her husband. Consequently, if the petitioner came into the zone of consideration for a suitable appointment on compassionate ground, nonetheless, she lost her right the moment she got married. 8. Consequently, at this stage I see no palpable error in the impugned order. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. ————