Widowed daughter-in-law married after employee's death is excluded from "family" for compassionate appointment.

Smt. Sangeeta Bajpayee, an Assistant Teacher, died in harness on April 23, 2021

She was survived by her husband (a pensioner) and an unemployed son, Nikhil Bajpayee

Nikhil’s application for compassionate appointment was rejected on April 10, 2023, because his father was receiving a pension

Meanwhile, Nikhil married the Appellant on February 15, 2023, but subsequently died on May 13, 2023

The Appellant then sought compassionate appointment as the "widowed daughter-in-law"

After several rounds of litigation, her appointment was initially granted but later cancelled by the District Inspector of Schools (D.I.O.S.) on the ground that she was not a dependent at the time of the employee's death

A learned Single Judge dismissed her writ petition, holding she was not a "member of family" at the time of death

The Court applied Regulations 103 to 107 issued under Section 16G of Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which define "members of the family" to include a "widow daughter-in-law"

It relied on the principle from Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138, which establishes that compassionate appointment is an exception to Articles 14 and 16, intended solely to mitigate immediate financial crisis

The Court also cited Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar (1998) 5 SCC 192, emphasizing that such appointments must not nullify general recruitment rules

Union of India v. B. Kishore (2011) 13 SCC 131 regarding the necessity of proving indigence

The Court reasoned that under Regulation 104, the names of family members must be reported within seven days of the employee's death; as the Appellant married the son 22 months after the death, she did not exist in the family unit at the relevant time

The term "widowed daughter-in-law" in Regulation 103 presupposes a status existing at the time of death or a dependency flowing from a son who was himself eligible

The Court noted that Nikhil’s own claim had been rejected and attained finality; thus, the Appellant could not claim a better right through him

Furthermore, the fact that the son could afford to marry two years after his mother's death negated the claim of "immediate financial crisis" or "indigence" required for such an equitable exception

The Court concluded that "member of family" must be interpreted as those dependent at the time of the employee's death

The Appellant, having entered the family via marriage nearly two years after the death, was not a "member of family" or a "dependent" under Regulation 103

The Court upheld the Single Judge's order and dismissed the Special Appeal, finding no perversity in the earlier judgment