Compassionate appointment must abide by the Scheme or Regulation governing the field, and reasonable classification with a nexus to the object sought to be achieved is essential.

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the definition of "family member" given in paragraph 2(m) of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order 2013, included the brother of the deceased dealer in case of engagement of Modified Ration Dealer (M.R. Dealer) on compassionate ground as contemplated in paragraph 20(vi) of the Control Order of 2013.

2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, the definition of "family member" as obtaining in paragraph 2(m) of the Control Order of 2013 is inconsistent with the general Rules of succession in case of Hindu males. He refers to Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act as well as the Schedule with regard thereto. He submits that, a father and a brother are class-II heirs. The definition of "family member" although includes dependent parents, it does not include a brother. Therefore, the exclusion of a brother from the definition of "family members" as obtaining in paragraph 2(m) of the Control Order is without any intelligible differentia. It is discriminatory. A brother ought to be included in the definition of a "family member". In support of the contention that, a classification needs to be reasonable to satisfy the test of Article 14 f the Constitution of India, he relies upon (State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75), (Roop Chand Adlakha & Ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Ors., (1989) Supp1 SCC 116) and (Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 138). Relying upon (State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Nallamilli Rami Reddi & Ors., (2001) 7 SCC 708), he submits that, the classification sought to be made must be just and reasonable and must have reasonable nexus to the object of the legislation.

3. Relying upon (Baldev Sahai Bangia vs. R.G. Bhasin, (1982) 2 SCC 210), learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, the definition of a family should not be restrictive in nature. Such a definition should not be construed restrictively. According to him, family will include a brother of the person concerned. In support of such contention, he relies upon (State of H.P. vs. Amar Nath Sharma & Ors., (1994) Supp2 SCC 532). He relies upon (Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K.Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC 243) and submits that, the words used in the definition should be construed appropriately. The word 'any' used in the definition of a "service" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was found to have significance. Relying upon (The State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Purnima Das & Ors., (2017) 4 CalHN 362), he submits that, a married daughter will come within the definition of a family. He relies upon (Mani Subrat Jain & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (1977) 1 SCC 486) and submits that, the writ petition is maintainable as the petitioner claims legal right which has been denied by the authorities.

4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel of the State appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that, a person is entitled to receive compassionate appointment in terms of the scheme obtaining with regard thereto. The claim of the petitioner is to be considered under the provisions of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order 2013. Family Members are defined under the Control Order of 2013. The petitioner does not fall within the definition of "family member" as obtaining therein. No appointment can be given de hors the Scheme. In support of the contention that, an appointment on compassionate ground is to be given strictly in accordance with the Scheme and not otherwise, he relies upon (Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (Mrs.) & Anr., (1994) 2 SCC 718), (V. Sivamurthy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., (2008) 13 SCC 730) and (State Bank of India & Anr. vs. Rajkumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661).

5. The brother of the petitioner was an M.R. Dealer. The brother of the petitioner died intestate on October 26,