JUDGMENT Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Ms. Sangeeta Jaiswal and Sri Badrul Hasan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider and appoint the petitioner on the suitable post under the dying-in-harness Rules. The petitioner is also challenging the appointment of her step brother, made on compassionate ground, by the opposite parties. 3. Submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the mother of the petitioner (late (Smt.) Chandrakanti w/o Sri Dev Narain Tewari, was posted as A.N.M. at Prathmik Swasthya Kendra Dubeypur, District Sultanpur), was the second wife of Shri Dev Narain Tewari. The petitioner is the only daughter of her mother (late Chandrakanti) and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Sultanpur issued relation certificate dated 06.09.2013wherein it has specifically been mentioned that there is no other relative of deceased Smt. Chandra Kanti except the petitioner and her father Sri Dev Narain Tewari. It is also submitted that after the death of the mother of petitioner, she submitted an application dated 11.12.2013 before opposite party no.4 i.e. Chief Medical Officer Sultanpur for her appointment under the provisions of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying In Harness) Rules, 1974, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1974') since she was the dependent member of her family, having qualification of M.A. , thus, fully eligible for compassionate appointment under the provisions of Rules, 1974. It is further submitted that the petitioner while waiting for her appointment letter from the office of opposite party no.4, but on receiving, a notice of caveat petition filed by Sri Virendra Kumar, the step brother of petitioner and to know that appointment under the Rules, 1974 was given to opposite party no.4 on account of death of mother of petitioner vide order dated 25.02.2014, without considering and deciding the application of the petitioner, which is still pending for decision, she shocked. 4. Further submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner is married but she has been left by her husband and she was living with her motheer at the time of death of her mother. 4. Further submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner is married but she has been left by her husband and she was living with her motheer at the time of death of her mother. It is also submitted that there was dispute between the mother and father of petitioner and the mother of petitioner was living with the petitioner separately and petitioner was dependent upon her mother because she has no source of income. The petitioner also submitted her representation on 25.03.2014 before the opposite parties and pointed out true facts that the appointment of the step brother of petitioner made on the basis of false and fabricated documents. But when no action has been taken at the end of the opposite parties, the petitioner is constrained to approach this court by filing the instant writ petition. 5. Sri Badrul Hasan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, while opposing the writ petition has submitted that a married daughter does not fall within the category of family member of deceased Government servant as per definition clause given under the aforesaid Rules, 1974. Rule 2(c) of the Rules, 1974. In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the Government has been pleased to make the following rules with a view to amending the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 vide notification dated 22.12.2011, known as "The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents Government Servants Dying in Harness (Ninth Amendment) Rules, 2011. The definition of 'family' as per the amended definition clause 2(c) reads as under: - "2(c)'family' shall include the following relations of the deceased Government servant: (i) wife or husband; (ii) sons/adopted sons; (iii) unmarried daughters, unmarried adopted daughters, widowed daughters and widowed daughters-in-law; (iv) unmarried brothers, unmarried sisters and widowed mother dependent on the deceased Government servant, if the deceased Government servant was unmarried; (v) aforementioned relations of such missing Government servant who has been declared as "dead" by the competent court; Provided that if a person belonging to any of the above mentioned relations of the deceased Government servant is not available or is found to be physically and mentally unfit and thus, ineligible for employment in Government service, then only in such situation the word "family" shall also include the grandsons and the unmarried grand daughters of the deceased Government servant dependent on him." 6. In support of his submission learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel also relied upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court, in the case of (Sunita Bhadooria(Smt.) vs. State of U.P. and another) reported in [ (2006) 1 UPLBEC 754 ]. Paragraphs 40 and 41, of the said case reads as under: - "40. Even otherwise, there is nothing in the petition to show as to what had been the financial condition of the petitioner's family i.e. the family of the petitioner's husband by which the petitioner being the wife is a member and we also fail to understand as to how she could claim to be member of two families simultaneously for the purpose of the Social Welfare Legislation like the Rules, 1974. 41. We do not find any force in the submissions made by Shri A.P.N. Giri. The petition is totally misconceived and the Court condemns and deprecates the practice of filing petition without proper pleadings and furnishing full particulars. Filing this kind of petition is not in the interest either the litigant or the Court or of the Society as a whole and on the other hand amounts to obstructing the cause of justice." 7. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel further relied upon the case of (Smt. Reeta Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) reported in (2013) 2 UPLBEC 1540 . Paragraph 7 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: - "7. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel further relied upon the case of (Smt. Reeta Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) reported in (2013) 2 UPLBEC 1540 . Paragraph 7 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: - "7. Having perused the relevant rules and the judgment aforesaid the Government order dated 22nd December 2011 recites the definition of the word 'family' as wife or husband, son/adopted son, unmarried daughters, widowed daughter, widowed daughter-in-law, unmarried brother and sister dependent on the deceased employee and a widowed mother (if the deceased employee had died unmarried). The claim, therefore, has been rejected as a divorced daughter does not fall within the definition of a widowed daughter." 8. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel again submits that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment on the ground, firstly, on the date of death of her mother, the petitioner was married daughter, secondly, on the date of moving the application for compassionate appointment she was not divorced daughter.? Admittedly, the petitioner is a married woman. As per definition given in rule 2(c) of the aforesaid Rules, 1974, she does not fall within the category of dependent.He relied upon the case of (Sarita Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) reported in 2012 (91) ALR, 323. Paragraph 15 of the aforesaid decision reads as under: - "15. In all the aforesaid cases, during the pendency of the applications, the scheme has been changed and a new scheme has been introduced by virtue of which the claim has been denied. The claim of the petitioner may be considered under the scheme which was available at the time of death and at the time of the moving of the application. In the present case, there is no such situation. The law which existed at the time of death, moving of the application and even today remains the same. The petitioner became ineligible for compassionate ground on account of her own act. The petitioner ceases to be family member of the deceased family after the marriage and became the member of her husband family. Moreover, it is not expected from her to maintain the family of her parents. It would be more appropriate that the other member of the family may make a claim if admissible in law. The object of giving compassionate appointment stands frustrated. Moreover, it is not expected from her to maintain the family of her parents. It would be more appropriate that the other member of the family may make a claim if admissible in law. The object of giving compassionate appointment stands frustrated. Rule 5 of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 provides compassionate appointment to a member of family. Therefore, relevant date is the date of appointment. On the date of appointment, the claimant should be eligible. If the claimant is not eligible on the date of appointment, she is not entitled to be appointed." 9. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment and order dated 30.05.2014, passed in Special Appeal No. 553 of 2014 (Gayatri Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) by a Division Bench of this Court. Paragraph 4 of the aforesaid judgment and order reads as under: - " The object of giving employment to the dependent of the deceased employee, who died in harness is to allow the family of tide over immediate financial crises which is faced by the family losing the bread earner during the period of his service. The unmarried, divorced or widowed daughter is covered in the definition of the family. Under the Rules of 1974 a married daughter, however, is not covered and cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right." 10. I have considered the submissions of rival parties. 11. This court finds that the learned counsel for petitioner without examining the provisions of the aforesaid Rules, 1974 has drafted the writ petition in a cursory manner, for which, she is warned to be cautious in future, while drafting and filing the writ petition before the Court. 12. While considering the claim for compassionate employment the court has to consider that as to whether compassionate employment can be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. 13. In view of the above, this court does not find the petitioner, entitled for compassionate appointment as she is not covered under the Rules, 1974. 14. The petition being wholly misconceived, is hereby dismissed.