ORDER : RAJESH BINDAL, CJ. 1. Order dated January 25, 2021 passed by learned Single Judge has been challenged by the State by filing the present intra-Court appeal. 2. The respondent had approached this Court challenging the order dated September 1, 2017, whereby the order of her appointment on compassionate basis was cancelled on the ground that she had concealed the factum of her being married at the time of initial appointment. 3. Learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the appellants, submitted that it is a case where respondent had concealed the factum of her being married at the time of the compassionate appointment, hence there being concealment of fact, her appointment is liable to be cancelled. Relying upon Rule 2(c)(iii) of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), it is submitted that married daughter is not included in the definition of the “family”. That being so, the appointment granted to the respondent on compassionate basis was liable to be withdrawn. As such, there was no error in the order withdrawing compassionate appointment granted to the respondent and learned Single Judge has wrongly quashed the same. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that exclusion of unmarried daughter from the definition of the family vide Rule 2(c)(iii) of the Rules was struck down by this Court in Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2016(1) ADJ 21 (DB). It means that the daughter, whether married and unmarried, both are now included within the definition of the “family” for the purpose of Rule 2(c) of the Rules. Special Leave Petition No. 22646 of 2016 (The State of U.P. and another Vs. Neha Srivastava) against the same was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated July 23, 2019. 5. It is further submitted that at the time when the respondent filed application for appointment on compassionate basis, she was not married, hence, there was no concealment of fact as such. Marriage took place thereafter. She, being in service for the last 15 years and having family to support, should not be thrown out of service. At present, she would be over age for entry into service. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 7. Marriage took place thereafter. She, being in service for the last 15 years and having family to support, should not be thrown out of service. At present, she would be over age for entry into service. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 7. As is evident from the fact on record, father of the respondent, who was working as Labour Inspector in the Labour Department, died during service in September, 1980. The respondent was an infant at that time. She attained majority in the year 1998. Only thereafter, she filed application for appointment on compassionate basis on October 13, 1999. Her case remained pending for a period of about six years. During interregnum period, on December 1, 2001, she got married. In pursuance of order dated July 21, 2006 issued by Government giving appointment to the respondent on a Class-III post, Deputy Labour Commissioner on November 4, 2006 issued appointment letter, pursuant whereof the respondent joined service. 8. From the aforesaid fact, it is evident that when the respondent filed application seeking compassionate appointment, she was not married as she is stated to have married on December 01, 2001 whereas the application for compassionate appointment was filed on October 13, 1999. Hence, it is not a case of concealment of fact in the application filed by the respondent. 9. Rule-2 (c)(iii) of the Rules defines “family” as under: “2. Definitions.-In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,- ….. (c) "family" shall include the following relations of the deceased Government servant: (i) Wife or husband; (ii) Sons; (iii) Unmarried and widowed daughters;” 10. Validity of the aforesaid provision, whereby married daughters were excluded for consideration for appointment on compassionate basis, was subject matter of challenge before this Court in Smt. Vimla Srivastava's case (supra). This Court held that exclusion of married daughter from the ambit of expression of “family” as defined under Rule 2(c) of the Rules is illegal and unconstitutional, hence was struck down. Special Leave Petition against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated July 23, 2019 in Neha Srivastava's case (supra). This Court held that exclusion of married daughter from the ambit of expression of “family” as defined under Rule 2(c) of the Rules is illegal and unconstitutional, hence was struck down. Special Leave Petition against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated July 23, 2019 in Neha Srivastava's case (supra). Meaning thereby, after exclusion of married daughter for being eligible for appointment on compassionate basis having been struck down by this Court, even married daughters are eligible for appointment on compassionate basis, and hence, cannot be treated ineligible, as such, as this Court has not framed any law rather has merely declared the law. 11. Considering the fact that the respondent is in service for the last more than 15 years and, as noticed above, there was no concealment of fact as such in the application filed by her seeking compassionate appointment, we do not find that any ground is made out to interfere in the order passed by learned Single. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.