JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. The brief facts of the as pleaded by the petitioner are that the father of the petitioner, who was working with the respondent No. 3 as permanent employee, was working as Lecturer (Commerce), he met with the sudden sad demise on 14.05.2013. The petitioner, who is a widowed daughter of the deceased employee, she had filed an application for seeking an appointment on compassionate grounds on 10.06.2013 that is well within the specified statutory time. When the same was not considered, and no decision was taken by the respondents within reasonable time, and family was facing financial dearth, the petitioner had approached the authority by filing various representations seeking early decision for appointment and on its non consideration, she had preferred a writ petition being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1452 of 2017, Anjali Singh v. State of Uttarakhand and Others, which was disposed of by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgement dated 19.06.2017 directing Additional Director of Education, Garhwal Region, Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal to decide the representation as preferred by the petitioner. Following directions were issued by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide its judgement dated 19.06.2017 which is quoted hereunder :- “Without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation to the Additional Director of Education, Garhwal Region, Pauri within a period of two weeks from today. If such representation is made, the Additional Director of Education shall decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.” 2. In compliance of the said judgement, the respondents by the impugned order have rejected the representation of the petitioner and consequently denied her candidature for being considered for appointed on compassionate grounds by the impugned order dated 14.10.2017. The reason which has been assigned by the office of respondent No. 2 in the impugned order of rejection was that since the petitioner is widowed daughter, she would not be covered under the definition of family as defined under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, wherein it includes the unmarried daughters and widowed daughter only. 3. The reason which has been assigned by the office of respondent No. 2 in the impugned order of rejection was that since the petitioner is widowed daughter, she would not be covered under the definition of family as defined under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, wherein it includes the unmarried daughters and widowed daughter only. 3. Counter affidavit was filed, and in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents they have placed on record an amendment which has been brought into effect under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 wherein by virtue of the amended Notification No. 5/XXX/-2/17/55(21)2002 Vh-lh-2 dated 18.10.2017 (CA-2). The divorced daughter has been brought within the definition of family as defined under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, and the same has made applicable in the State of Uttarakhand. The amended definition of family now under the rules reads as under :- LreHk & 1 LreHk & 2 ¼orZeku [k.M½ ¼,rn~}kjk izfr LFkkfir [k.M½ dqVqEc ds vUrxZr e`r ljdkjh lsod ds fuEufyf[kr laca/kh gksaxsa& ¼1½ iRuh ;k ifr] ¼2½ iq= ¼3½ vfookfgr iqf=;ka rFkk fo/kok iqf=;kaA ¼4½ e`r ljdkjh lsod ij fuHkZj vfookfgr HkkbZ] vfookfgr cgu vkSj fo/kok ekrk] ;fn e`r ljdkjh lsod vfookfgr FkkA dqVqEc ds vUrxZr e`r ljdkjh lsod ds fuEufyf[kr laca/kh gksaxsa& ¼1½ iRuh ;k ifr] ¼2½ iq= ¼3½ vfookfgr iqf=;ka] fo/kok iqf=;ka rFkk rykd'kqnk iqf=;kA ¼4½ e`r ljdkjh lsod ij fuHkZj vfookfgr HkkbZ] vfookfgr cgu vkSj fo/kok ekrk] ;fn e`r ljdkjh lsod vfookfgr FkkA 4. The respondents have filed their supplementary counter affidavit and while making reference to the amendment made by the Notification dated 18.10.2017 called as **mRrjizns'k lsokdky esa e`r ljdkjh lsodksa ds vkfJrksa dh HkrhZ fu;ekoyh 1974 ¼mRrjkapy vuqdwyu ,oa mikUrj.k vkns'k] 2002½ ¼f}rh; la'kks/ku½ fu;ekoyh] 2017, as issued by the Governor while exercising its power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India had submitted that the petitioner would not be entitled for grant of compassionate appointment because the Institution of respondent No. 3 is not an aided Institution, but is rather only a recognized institution; not a government aided Secondary School, and hence the Dying in Harness Rules of 1974 would not apply and consequently the amendment as made on 18.10.2017 would too not apply. 5. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 2, it has been stated that the institution where the deceased father of petitioner was working was only recognized under Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006, and as per Regulation 2009 framed under Section 24 of the Act. Particularly, Regulation 91 deals with harness appointment which reads as under:– “In case of death of an employee of Teaching or Non-Teaching Staff of a recognized Aided Secondary School during his service tenure, who was appointed after adopting due process, one of his family member who is not below the age of 18 years could be appointed on the post of Teacher (Trained Graduate Grade) or on a post in Non-Teaching, in case such member possess the requisite eligibility and otherwise eligible for appointment.” In the recognized Aided Institution Junior High School, the member will be given appointment on the post of Teaching or Non-Teaching as per his eligibility. Explanation:- For the purposes of this Regulation, the meaning of ‘Family’ is Widow of deceased/Widower, Son, unmarried or widow daughter.” 6. In reply to the said argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner had made reference to the rejoinder affidavit, wherein the aforesaid fact pleaded in para 4 of the counter affidavit of respondent No. 2, has been denied and a reference has also been made during the course of the argument to an information which has been supplied to the petitioner by the Principal of said College of respondent No. 3, wherein it has been specifically stated in the information thus supplied on 30.10.2018 that the Institution of respondent No. 3 is under grant-in-aid and it is governed by the provisions of Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006 and consequent thereto the provisions of compassionate appointment as provided by Regulation 91 are made applicable. The relevant response as given by the Principal in the information vide his letter No. 102/ lw-v- /2018-19 dated 30.10.2018 is quoted hereunder : - **¼1½ iatkc fla/k {ks= b.Vj dkWyst _f"kds'k lgk;rk izkIr v'kkldh; fo|ky; gSA ¼2½ ljdkjh lgk;rk izkIr bl fo|ky; esa mRrjk[k.M f'k{kk vf/kfu;e 2006 esa fn;s x;s izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr e`rd vkfJr dksVs esa fu;qfDr dk izko/kku gSA** 7. It has also been informed further that based on the aforesaid implications of the Rules of 1974 other appointments have already been made of the widowed daughters in the same Institution for e.g. Kumari Priyanka Tewari daughter of late Mr. Janardan Tewari and Sushant Badola son of the deceased employee late Mr. Anand Prasad Badola. This aspect was treated as embargo for only consideration which has been assigned in the order of rejection dated 14.10.2017 impugned in the writ petition. The reason for rejection is based on the un-amended rules of 2004 which was applicable at the relevant time. The amendment of 2017 made in the definition clause of family provided under Rule 2(C) has now included within the definition of family, the divorced daughter, as per amendment made by Notification No. 275/XXX-3/17/55(21)/2002 dated 18.10.2017, in its sub clause (2) of Clause 1 it makes the amendment applicable in the following manner: 1(2) ;g rqjUr izo`r gksxhA means it would apply immediately means all matters pending consideration on the date of amendment for compassionate appointment. Dying in harness rules are welfare legislation made to meet the financial crises caused due to sudden death of breadwinner, hence it should be made applicable to matters pending consideration under the aforesaid rules, no decision has been taken by that time is case of the petitioner, which would also include the matters pending consideration before the courts on its rejection. The notification has not been made applicable from a specified date, hence since it alters the very definition of family, by the rules framed under Article 309, this Court is of the view that the same would be made applicable on all pending mattes also, so as to meet the social objective. 8. The notification has not been made applicable from a specified date, hence since it alters the very definition of family, by the rules framed under Article 309, this Court is of the view that the same would be made applicable on all pending mattes also, so as to meet the social objective. 8. Looking to circumstances, the only reason to exclude the divorced daughter was the ‘marriage’ but, a married daughter, who is separated after marriage is quite was obviously would be a dependent on the father, excluding her from consideration under harness rules would be a gender discrimination, as she cannot be treated to be excluded from dependency merely because of the fact of marriage, if she has been separated and divorced it would violate Article 15(2) of the Constitution of India on the ground of sex, because under the Rules of 1974, no such distinction as such can be made in relation to son who is not affected whether divorced, separated or not. This would be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it creates an artificial distinction between married son and married daughter only on the basis of sex, because under the rules married son or divorced son has not been separately distinguished they stand included in the definition of family. Hence there was no reason and rationale as to why divorced daughter would be excluded. 9. In view of the fact that the Institution is already receiving the grant-in-aid, a writ of certiorari is issued and the impugned order of rejection dated 14.10.2017 passed by respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent to consider the candidature of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in the light of the amended provisions which has been brought into effect by the Notification dated 18.10.2017, whereby the divorced daughter has been included within the definition of family under the Dying in Harness Rules 1974 and also considering the fact that as per the information received by the petitioner from respondent No. 3 the Institution since being an Institution receiving the grant-in-aid and on which the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006 is made applicable, consequently Regulation too would apply, the candidature of the petitioner would deserve to be considered within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 10. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition stands allowed. However, there would be no order as to cost.