JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Sharma, J.—Heard Sri Niraj Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents. 2. Learned Standing Counsel, who represents the respondents, was granted one month’s time to file a counter affidavit, but no counter affidavit has been filed. The petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court verious judgments by which the controversy raised in this petition “whether the daughter- in- law who becomes a member of her husband’s family after marriage is included within the definition of family of her father-in-law has been set at rest. 3. The reference of these judgments are as follows : Smt. Sanyogita Rai v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2006 (2) 1972; Zila Panchayat Kaushambi and another v. Lalti Devi and another, 2008(2) ADJ 428 (DB), C.M.D.; U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Lucknow and others v. Jitendra Pratap Singh and another, 2008 (2) ADJ 433 (DB). 4. It emerges from the record that the petitioner Smt. Geeta Singh’s father-in-law, Anil Kumar Singh, who was working as Assistant Development Officer (Co-operative) had died in harness on 30.4.2007, leaving behind his wife Smt. Naina Singh and daughter-in-law, Smt. Gita Singh. It is noteworthy that late Anil Kumar Singh’s son, namely, Shiv Pratap Singh (husband of petitioner Smt. Gita Singh) had died prior to his father Anil Kumar Singh’s death. Thus the dependants of the family comprises of two ladies, namely, Smt. Naina Singh w/o the deceased employee and young daughter-in-law, Smt. Gita Singh, having three minor children and other members to sustain in life. Wife of the deceased employee-Sri Anil Kumar Singh approached the concerned authorities i.e. Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies, U.P. Lucknow and District Assistant Registrar of the same department seeking compassionate appointment educated daughter-in-law to enable the family to sustain. The young daughter-in-law is having intermediate qualification and is eligible for providing appropriate employment in the department. 5. In the relevant documents relating to payment of pensionary benefits, G.P.F., Gratuity etc., the petitioner, daughter-in-law, has been shown as one of the nominees of late Sri Anil Kumar Singh. It appears that the matter was referred to the State Government after submitting the application by mother-in-law, Smt. Naina Singh for appointment of the petitioner, daughter-in-law of late Anil Kumar Singh, which was rejected on the ground that daughter-in-law cannot be treated to be a family member of the deceased employee. It appears that the matter was referred to the State Government after submitting the application by mother-in-law, Smt. Naina Singh for appointment of the petitioner, daughter-in-law of late Anil Kumar Singh, which was rejected on the ground that daughter-in-law cannot be treated to be a family member of the deceased employee. The daughter-in-law does not become the family member according to the definition clause of U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rule, 1974, as it has not been included in the definition of the family. 6. As per learned Counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order passed by respondents declining to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner is wholly illegal and is against the very spirit of the judgments rendered by this Court, as indicated in the forgoing part of this judgment and order. 7. A Division Bench of this Court has held in the case of Zila Panchayat, Kaushambi and another v. Lalti Devi and another (supra) that daughter-in-law who becomes a member of the family of her husband has to be included in the definition clause of the family of father-in-law. 8. Similar view has also been expressed in the judgment rendered by this Court in the case Chairman/M.D. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Lucknow v. Jitendra Pratap Singh (supra), in which it has been held that if the person who is claiming compassionate appointment is a needy person, then the respondent-authority must consider the case of such candidate sympathetically and provide compassionate appointment to such needy person. 9. In the present case, the family has no source of income and as such it is in dire need of some employment and source of income. All these factors have been ignored by the appropriate authority-respondents and a hyper-technical view has been taken in the matter while rejecting the application for compassionate appointment. In view of the above discussions, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 8.1.2008 passed by respondent No. 2 and order dated 31.1.2008 passed by respondent No. 3 are hereby quashed. In view of the above discussions, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 8.1.2008 passed by respondent No. 2 and order dated 31.1.2008 passed by respondent No. 3 are hereby quashed. However, in the interest of justice, the matter is remanded back to the respondents to take fresh decision in the matter in the light of the judgments cited above which shall be produced by the petitioner before the appropriate authority by supplying photo copies of the judgments and appropriate orders shall be passed within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the respondents. 11. Certified copy of this judgment and order shall be submitted before respondent No. 3 and photo copies of the order may be sent to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for enabling them to take appropriate action in the matter within the stipulated period. If the petitioner is found suitable, she shall be provided compassionate appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules and her case shall not be rejected only on the ground that she being not the member of the family of deceased Sri Anil Kumar Singh. ————