JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. A.N. Lall, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rewti Kant Raman, learned AC to SC-11, for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No. 212 dated 12.8.2016, whereby the Superintending Engineer has returned the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, inter alia, on grounds that being a married daughter she is not entitled to the benefit. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order bearing letter no. 106 dated 7.2.2017 of the Executive Engineer, impugned at Annexure 12, whereby the claim has been rejected, inter alia, on grounds that her case does not come within the scope of the policy decision bearing letter no. 16973 dated 10.12.2014 and letter no. 1866 dated 4.2.2015, which does not entitle the petitioner to the relief. 3. Mr. Lall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has relied upon the very same circulars, copies of which are placed at Annexures 3 and 4 respectively, to submit that a married daughter has been brought within the category of dependents and thus, the rejection is mechanical and without notice to the stipulations present in the decision of the General Administration Department dated 10.12.2014 at Annexure 4, which was reiterated vide letter dated 27.5.2015 at Annexure 3. 4. A counter affidavit is on record and Mr. Raman, learned counsel for the State, in reference thereto has submitted that since admittedly there are no dependent left in the family of the deceased employee except the petitioner herself but since she is already married and not required to take care of any dependent, she does not come within the scope of the revised guidelines on the issue. It is also argued that the petitioner also does not possess the basic qualification for appointment. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. It is not in dispute that married daughters were brought within the category of dependents vide decision of the General Administration Department bearing circular No. 16973 dated 10.12.2014 at Annexure 4 and reiterated vide letter dated 27.5.2015 at Annexure 3. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. It is not in dispute that married daughters were brought within the category of dependents vide decision of the General Administration Department bearing circular No. 16973 dated 10.12.2014 at Annexure 4 and reiterated vide letter dated 27.5.2015 at Annexure 3. Although the married daughters were brought within the category of dependents but the object was made very clear and that is in a situation where she was required to look after the dependents of the deceased i.e. the widowed mother and widower father who were not in a position to look after themselves. Paragraph 2 of the circular dated 10.12.2014 does discuss the object and reason for bringing the married daughter within the category of dependents and the object is loud and clear which is to enable the family which only consists of daughters only to look after the family of the deceased even after her marriage. I deem it proper in this regard to reproduce paragraph 2 of the circular which is self eloquent: HINDI It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the only daughter of the deceased Government servant. It is also not in dispute that her mother has also deceased in 2011 after the death of her father in 2010. It is thus not a case where the petitioner is required to look after any of the surviving dependents except for herself, but then this is not the object for which definition of a “dependent” was enlarged rather enlargement was with a definite purpose which is to look after the dependants in the family of the deceased Government servant. It is not a case where the petitioner was living separate from her husband nor it is a case of divorcee, which may require a different consideration because in such cases the daughters do have to return to their father’s/ mother’s care hold. 7. Since such is not the case in hand, in the circumstances discussed, and where the petitioner stands happily married in her matrimonial home, the decision taken by the respondents to disentitle her to the appointment, does not suffer any infirmity requiring interference. 8. The writ petition is dismissed.