JUDGMENT : 1. Smt. Shashi Mishra has preferred this special appeal challenging judgment dated 30.07.2015 rendered in Writ Petition No.4320 (SS) of 2015 titled Smt. Shashi Mishra v. State of U.P. and Others. Vide the impugned judgment, the writ petition has been dismissed. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Rajeev Ratna Chaudhary, learned counsel for respondent/State. 3. The facts appear to be that Shri Bhagvati Prasad Tripathi while in government service died in harness on 08.09.2010. The appellant/writ petitioner filed an application for appointment on compassionate grounds under The U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (For short Rules of 1974). It appears that the appellant/writ petitioner claimed a right to be given appointment on compassionate grounds under Rules of 1974 on the premise that she being daughter of Shri Bhagvati Prasad Tripathi, the deceased employee, was married, however was subsequently given divorce by virtue of judgment and decree dated 06.12.2014. In such circumstances, being the daughter of Shri Bhagvati Prasad Tripathi, she be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. 4. Learned Single Judge while referring to definition of family from Rules of 1974 has held that the claim/case of the appellant/writ petitioner would not fall within the four corners of definition of family as provided under Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1974. The appellant/writ petitioner would not be a family member of the deceased employee, being married daughter, though divorced. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner has relied on judgment dated 03.01.2019 rendered in Special Appeal Defective No.673 of 2018 titled State of U.P. and Ors. v. Noopur Srivastava. It has been pleaded that the law in regard to right of a divorced daughter to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds has been declared by a Division Bench of this Court in January, 2019, i.e. subsequent to passing of impugned judgment, hence the case of the petitioner be considered in that light. On the basis of the judgment it has been contended that even a divorced daughter would become dependent on the deceased employee and therefore, her claim is required to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds under Rules of 1974. 6. We have carefully considered the contention and have gone through judgment dated 03.01.2019 (supra). On the basis of the judgment it has been contended that even a divorced daughter would become dependent on the deceased employee and therefore, her claim is required to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds under Rules of 1974. 6. We have carefully considered the contention and have gone through judgment dated 03.01.2019 (supra). The following (relevant portion) has been held in the judgment :- x x x x x x x "Further, under Rule 2 (c) of Rules of 1974 there is no express exclusion that a "divorced daughter" is not entitled to appointment under the Rules nor the expression "Unmarried" daughter has been clarified by putting the words to the effect that it means a "daughter never married" or "daughter not married" and being so the secondary meaning of term "Unmarried" cannot be ignored and is liable to be taken into account in the given circumstances in context of beneficial legislation i.e. Rules of 1974. On the basis of aforesaid discussion in the context of Rules of 1974, we hold that the expression "divorced daughter" is included/implicit in the expression "Unmarried daughter". Accordingly we hold that a "divorced daughter" is entitled to compassionate appointment if she was dependant, on the date of death of her father/mother (the employee) and the marriage was dissolved legally either prior to or after the date of death of bread earner of the family and she remains "not married" at the time of appointment. In addition, the judgment dated 04.07.2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 2707 (SS) of 2004 (Gudiya Awasthy v. State of U.P.) was challenged in the Special Appeal No. 19 of 2012 and this Court vide judgment dated 04.09.2018 has set aside the judgment dated 04.07.2011 and being so, no reliance can be placed on the judgment dated 04.07.2011 as the effect of setting aside a judgment in the eye of law is that, the judgment which has been set aside is not in existence and a judgment/order by which the judgment is set aside would be the operative decision in the case. According to doctrine/principle of "merger" original decision merges in appellate decision. The logic underlying the doctrine of merger is that there cannot be more than one decree or order governing the same subject matter at a given point of time. According to doctrine/principle of "merger" original decision merges in appellate decision. The logic underlying the doctrine of merger is that there cannot be more than one decree or order governing the same subject matter at a given point of time. Thus, judgment dated 04.07.2011 passed in Gudiya Awasthys case is liable to be ignored and argument based on the same are not sustainable and liable to be rejected. For the reasons aforesaid and after considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for respective parties and considering the record of appeal we find that the petitioner (respondent in appeal) is a divorced daughter whose marriage was dissolved on 08.03.2013 and the mother of the petitioner (respondent in appeal), who was in employment, expired on 13.05.2017 i.e. after the divorce. The ground of rejection of claim of appointment on compassionate ground as mentioned in the order dated 11.07.2018 and the fact that in the instant case of a "divorced daughter" the Honble Single Judge, on the basis of judgments passed in the case(s) of Jayanti Devi and Kusum Devi, wherein the issue of divorced daughter was involved, passed the judgment under appeal as well as the finding of this Court, on the basis of meaning of the term "Unmarried", noted above, in the context of the Rules of 1974 that a "divorced daughter" is entitled to compassionate appointment; we feel that no interference is required in the judgment under appeal dated 27.08.2018." 7. Having considered the contents of judgment rendered in Noopur Srivastavas case (supra) (above extracted portion), we find that the case of the appellant/writ petitioner would not be covered by that judgment. The facts and circumstances considered by the Court in Noopur Srivastavas case (supra) were that the daughter/dependent was given divorce on 08.03.2013 by virtue of dissolution of her marriage. Mother of the said person who was in service died on 13.05.2017 i.e. after the grant of divorce. In such circumstances, it was held that she could claim employment on compassionate grounds under Rules of 1974 because she would be covered under the definition of "unmarried daughter". On the date of death of the mother/employee, the applicant/daughter was dependent on her mother/employee who died in harness. 8. In such circumstances, it was held that she could claim employment on compassionate grounds under Rules of 1974 because she would be covered under the definition of "unmarried daughter". On the date of death of the mother/employee, the applicant/daughter was dependent on her mother/employee who died in harness. 8. We are of the considered view that the purpose of Rules of 1974 is that family member of a government servant, who dies in harness, be granted employment to tied over immediate financial hardship. In such circumstances, family has been defined under Rule 2(c) of Rules of 1974 which include wife or husband; sons/adopted sons; unmarried daughters, unmarried adopted daughters; widowed daughters and widowed daughters-in-law. In case the government servant is unmarried, the family would include unmarried brothers, unmarried sisters and widowed mother dependent on the deceased government servant. The purpose of defining family appears to be that the family member should be dependent on the government servant who dies in harness. Surely, a daughter who is married cannot be said to be legally dependent on her father/mother who dies in harness. 9. The logic underlying the beneficial legislation viz. the Rules of 1974 appears to be that a dependent family member (as defined under Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1974) be considered for appointment in government service on compassionate grounds to tied over immediate financial crisis, in case of death of a government servant in harness. Surely, a daughter who is married on the date of death of the government servant cannot, in law, be considered as dependent on her father. 10. In the case in hand, father of the appellant/writ petitioner died in harness as a government servant on 08.09.2010. On the said date, the appellant/writ petitioner was legally married and dependent on her husband. The married daughter/appellant/writ petitioner cannot be said to be legally dependent on her father on the date of his death. The appellant writ petitioner admittedly was legally divorced w.e.f 06.12.2014, i.e. four years after death of her father. It cannot be legally concluded that the appellant/writ petitioner was dependent on her father on the date of his death. In such circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with a well reasoned judgment which has been rendered in context of statutory provisions. 11. The appeal is dismissed.