JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. The dispute relates to a claim of compassionate appointment on account of the death of Late Ramawati Devi, who was working as Head Mistress in a Primary School. The petitioner is the daughter-in-law of Late Ramawati Devi, who unfortunately lost her husband and therefore she claims compassionate appointment. Simultaneously, the respondent No. 4-Subodh Kumar Mishra, who is the brother of Late Sunil Kumar Mishra, husband of the petitioner, also stakes his claim. Both theses claims were considered by the District Basic Education Officer, Deoria and the same have been rejected. The claim of Subodh Kumar Mishra was rejected on the ground that his wife is already employed and secondly he was already enrolled as a respectable lawyer since 1999 therefore he was not entitled for any compassion. The claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that a daughter-in-law does not fall within the definition of the word “family” as contained in Rule 2 (c) of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. 3. Learned standing counsel has invited the attention of the Court to the fact that the writ petition of Shri Subodh Kumar Mishra has already been dismissed by this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52883 of 2009 (Subodh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 12.10.2009. 4. In view of the aforesaid dismissal of the writ petition of the respondent no. 4 there is no occasion for this Court to issue any notice to the said respondent No. 4. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the sole ground taken by the respondents to non suit the petitioner is that she being daughter-in-law of Late Ramawati Devi does not fall within the definition of the word family. 6. Having considered the Rule in question and having perused the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Zila Panchayat, Kaushambi and others v. Lalti Devi and another reported in 2008 (2) ADJ 428 (DB), it is not necessary to call for any counter affidavit on behalf of the State as the said decision squarely covers the case of the petitioner. It has been held by this Court that the word “family” includes the relations as defined therein. It has been held by this Court that the word “family” includes the relations as defined therein. According to the Division Bench judgment the said definition is inclusive and to the extent of daughter-in-law is not exhaustive. It has been held that a daughter-in-law, who is a widow, is also entitled for compassionate appointment. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Sanyogita Rai v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2006 (5) ADJ 501 . The said decision has also been noticed in the judgment of Division Bench referred to herein above. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order for the reasons aforesaid is unsustainable. The order dated 5.9.2009, insofar as it relates to the petitioner, is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the District Basic Education Officer to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the observations made herein above and pass an appropriate order within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him. 9. The writ petition is allowed. No costs Petition Allowed. ————