ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner, being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with the order, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1189 of 2014 dated 5th August, 2016, whereby, the writ petition, preferred by this appellant, was dismissed, mainly on the ground that this appellant (original petitioner), who was unmarried at the time of death of her father and though, she was dependent and later on she married and hence, she ceased to be the dependent of her father and hence, no compassionate appointment can be given as per circular dated 1st December, 2015 and hence, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, against which the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the daughter of the deceased employee of the respondent-government, for getting compassionate appointment. 2. Factual matrix: This appellant (original petitioner) is the daughter of deceased employee of the respondent. Her father, namely, Anil Chandra Rajak, who was serving as a class-IV employee with the Respondent-State of Jharkhand, who expired during the course of his employment, leaving behind widow, daughter no. 1 (married) and daughter no. (2), who is the present appellant. Father of this appellant expired on 11th July, 1011 and this appellant preferred an application for compassionate appointment on 05.10.2012. This application was within the time limit. It is fairly submitted by the counsel for the appellant as well as Additional Advocate General of the State of Jharkhand that limitation to prefer such application is five years as per Clause (10) of circular dated 1st December 2015, which is at Annexure-(8) to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. Moreover, this appellant was unmarried as on date of death of her father i.e. on 11th July, 2011, hence, she was dependent upon her father as on 11th July, 2011. This appellant waited for more than one year for getting compassionate appointment. The respondents have not granted the compassionate appointment nor passed any reasoned order, rejecting her application. This appellant got married on 16th November, 2013. The writ petition has been preferred by this appellant because no reply was given by the Respondent-State on her application for compassionate appointment dated 05th October, 2012 and the said writ application has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge being WPS No. 1189 of 2014 vide order dated 5th August,2016. This appellant got married on 16th November, 2013. The writ petition has been preferred by this appellant because no reply was given by the Respondent-State on her application for compassionate appointment dated 05th October, 2012 and the said writ application has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge being WPS No. 1189 of 2014 vide order dated 5th August,2016. Now, she has got married and hence, this appellant cannot be given appointment on compassionate basis because she is now dependent upon her husband and not upon her father. 3. Arguments canvassed by counsel for the appellant: i. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the father of this appellant (original petitioner) expired on 11th July, 2011 and within the time prescribed, the application for compassionate appointment was preferred by this appellant i.e. on 5th October, 2012 and at the time of death of her father, she was unmarried and she was dependent upon her father. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, preferred by this appellant. ii. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that as per Government Circular dated 01st December, 2015, issued by the Respondent No. 1 (Annexure-8 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal), especially, as per Clause 4(iii) is concerned, this appellant is entitled to get the compassionate appointment because as on the date of death of her father, she was dependent upon her father. iii. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that there cannot be any earlier circular which discriminates the daughter and son i.e. if the son is married as on the date of death of his father, he will get compassionate appointment whereas, if the daughter is married as on the date of death of her father she will not get the compassionate appointment. Even if, such type of clauses have been incorporated in any of the earlier circular, the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. iv. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that even if there is clause 1(c) of the circular dated 5.10.1991, to the effect, that the married daughter will not be treated as dependent of the deceased employee, the same is discriminative in nature because when the father expires of any daughter and if she is unmarried, she is always dependent upon her father. Subsequent marriage has nothing to do with the applicability of such type of clauses. A daughter cannot afford to remain unmarried till the senses of the government is awaken. Hence, the subsequent marriage of a daughter of the deceased employee, who was dependent upon her father, when her father expires, is always entitled for compassionate appointment, even though at a later stage, such daughter is getting married. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, preferred by this appellant. 4. Arguments canvassed by counsel for the respondents: i. Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the father of this appellant expired on 11th July 2011, at that time Circular dated 5.10.1991 of the erstwhile state of Bihar was in operation and as per the said Circular the dependent of the deceased employee as per Clause 1 (c) were widow, son, unmarried daughter and widow of the deceased son. They are the only categories of persons, who were defined as dependent. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. REASONS 5. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we, hereby, quash and set aside the order dated 5th August, 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1189 of 2014, mainly for the following facts and reasons:- i. The father of this appellant (original petitioner) was serving with the Respondent-State, who expired on 11th July, 2011 during the course of his employment, leaving behind his widow, daughter-1 and another daughter, who is the present appellant. ii. Daughter-1 was married and the present appellant is another daughter of the deceased employee who was unmarried and was dependent upon her father, as on date of death of her father i.e. on 11th July, 2011. She applied for compassionate appointment, within the period of limitation of five years i.e. on 5th October, 2012. iii. No reply was given by the Respondent-State on this application. For more than 300 or 365 days, this appellant waited for several months, several weeks and several days thereafter this appellant married on 16th November, 2013, and has also preferred a writ petition for getting compassionate appointment. iii. No reply was given by the Respondent-State on this application. For more than 300 or 365 days, this appellant waited for several months, several weeks and several days thereafter this appellant married on 16th November, 2013, and has also preferred a writ petition for getting compassionate appointment. Learned Single Judge has dismissed her writ petition only on the ground that now she is married and, hence, she is not entitled to get the compassionate appointment. iv. It appears that as on date of death of the father of this appellant i.e. on 11th July, 2011 , this appellant was unmarried. She was dependent upon her father. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition. v. It ought to be kept in mind that daughter of deceased-employee who had applied for compassionate appointment, may not wait till she gets compassionate appointment, for her marriage. The government also cannot expect that because of lethargic approach of the government in scrutiny of the application of daughter of deceased-employee, should never marry and once she is married, the lame excuse has to be advanced that now, the said daughter is married and, hence, she ceased to be the dependent upon her father and hence, she is not entitled for compassionate appointment. Such type of argument is not accepted by this court. The position of the daughter, as on date of death of her father, ought to have been appreciated by the learned Single Judge. In the facts of the present case, the present appellant (original petitioner) was not only unmarried, but, she was also dependent upon her father as on date of death of her father i.e. on 11th July, 2011. The government always takes time in scrutiny of the application. Some time one month and some time one year also. Here, in the facts of the present case, neither any reply was given by the government nor any objection was raised by the government and the government maintained stoic silence, which tantamounts to omission on the part of the respondent-government. Omission is also an act and such act has been challenged in the writ petition preferred by this appellant being W.P.(S) No. 1189 of 2014. Omission is also an act and such act has been challenged in the writ petition preferred by this appellant being W.P.(S) No. 1189 of 2014. These aspects of the matter have also not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition and ostensible error has been committed by the learned single judge to the effect that the position as on date of death of father of this appellant was to be seen i.e. position as on 11th July, 2011, when this appellant was unmarried and dependent upon her father, whereas, the learned single judge has appreciated the present position and this is the error apparent on the face of the record. vi. Counsel for the Respondent-State had relied upon Circular dated 5.10.1991, issued by erstwhile State of Bihar and as per the said Circular, if any employee has expired leaving behind his daughter, who is married, she will not be treated as dependent. This Circular is not applicable in the facts of the present case. Hence, the said circular is not useful to the respondent-state because as on date of death of father of this appellant, this appellant was unmarried and dependent upon her father. vii. Assuming without admitting, when the government has not decided the claim of this appellant since 2012 and meanwhile new circular dated 1st December, 2015 has been brought into effect by the government by sublimation of the earlier circulars, even in that eventuality also, looking to Clause 4(iii), this appellant is entitled to get compassionate appointment. viii. Thus, earlier circular dated 5th October, 1991 is not applicable to this appellant and the fresh new circular dated 1st December, 2015, if applicable to this appellant then also this appellant is entitled to get compassionate appointment. In both the eventualities, upon prima facie reading of this clause, this appellant is entitled to get the compassionate appointment. She has applied within the time limit, as stated by counsel for the appellant as well as by the learned Additional Advocate General, such time limit is five years from the date of death of the employee. It ought to be kept in mind by the State that State is an ideal employer and always the priority has to be given to the applications of - (a) Senior Citizen; (b) Children; (c) Widow; (d) Differently able persons and; (e) Woman. It ought to be kept in mind by the State that State is an ideal employer and always the priority has to be given to the applications of - (a) Senior Citizen; (b) Children; (c) Widow; (d) Differently able persons and; (e) Woman. These five category of the applicants before the State should always be given priority for disposal of their applications. State ought to have such priority as a policy decision. This appellant, being the daughter of the deceased employee, had applied for compassionate appointment on 5th October, 2012 but, her application was never scrutinized. This is a monolithic approach of the State and if, for much longer time, the government is not scrutinizing the application of the daughter of the deceased employee, the Government cannot expect that these daughters should not marry till they decide the matter for compassionate appointment. Daughter will never wait for her marriage, who has applied for compassionate appointment. These two things are absolutely independent in nature viz. (a) To be eligible for the compassionate appointment as on date of death of the employee, by the dependent; and (b) To get married at a later date, by the daughter of the deceased employee. These aspects of the matter, have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, we hereby quash and set-aside the judgment and order dated 5th August, 2016 passed by the learned single judge in W.P.(S) No. 1189 of 2014. We direct the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 to issue appointment letter to this appellant for class-iv post employee within a period of twelve weeks from today, failing which the aforesaid three respondents shall remain personally present before this court on 06.03.2017. The Respondent-State is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand), as a cost, to the appellant within a period of four weeks thereafter. This amount will be paid by A/C payee cheque in favour of the appellant. 7. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal is allowed and disposed of. 8. This matter will be listed on 06.03.2017 only to verify compliance of directions.