Interpretation of the word 'family' under the U.P. Recruitment of dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 and the eligibility of a divorced daughter for compassionate appointment.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel representing respondent nos. 1 and 2.

( 2 ) THIS, writ petition is being heard finally and decided under the Rules of the Court as also agreed by the counsels for the parties.

( 3 ) PHOTO-COPIES of the certified copies of the papers relating to Original Suit No. 89 of 2000, smt. Kushum Devi v. Arun Kumar Sen, under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, show that the petitioner, who is daughter of late Bhagwat Prasad, was married to one Arun Kumar Sen and the said marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 17. 12. 2000 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner has remarried.

( 4 ) FATHER of the petitioner Bhagwat Prasad, employed in the respondents office at Jhansi, died on 11. 11. 1999 leaving behind his widow who submitted an application on 18. 1. 2001 for giving compassionate appointment to her daughter, the present petitioner (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) to the Commissioner and Director, U. P. Industry Department, Kanpur, who forwarded the same to the General Manager for consideration under relevant dying-in-Harness Rules for appointment. In the said application, wife of the deceased employee, late Bhagwat Prasad aforementioned, requested for giving appointment to her daughter (namely, the petitioner ). The petitioner in a representation dated 16. 4. 2001 submitted that there was no other family member of Bhagwat Prasad except her mother, who was of old age and not able to take up the job ; copy of the application is filed Annexure-4 to the writ petition. General Manager, vide impugned order dated 9. 5. 2001 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), rejected the petitioners claim for compassionate appointment under the U. P. Recruitment of dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 (for short called the rules) and held that under the said definition of the word family under the Rules only "wife or husband, sons or "unmarried daughters/widowed daughters are covered and since the petitioner was divorced daughter, her claim under the aforesaid Rules was not maintainable. Rule 2, shows that the definition of word family is inclusive and not exclusive. Rule 2 (c) of the Rules, 1974, is quoted below :

" (c) "family" shall include the following relations of the deceased Government servant : (i) Wife or husband : (ii) Sons ; (iii) Unmarried and widowed daughters. "

Petitioners counsel placed reliance upon the decision in the case of State of U. P. and others v. Rajendra Kumar and others, 1999 (83) FLR 523 (DB ). wherein this Court referring to various decisions held that the word family used in Rules 2 (c) is not exhaustive and a grandson who is dependent upon a deceased employee will be covered under aforesaid rule which is a piece of beneficial legislation and have to be liberally construed. Paras 5, 11 and 12 of the said judgment in the case of State of U. P. (supra) are quoted for ready reference :"5. The learned single Judge agreed with this submission and we also agree with the same. The word include connotes that the persons mentioned in Rule 2 (c) are not exhaustive of the meaning of the word family but are only inclusive. This implies that the word family is not limited to the persons mentioned in Rule 2 (c), but more persons can be included in the definition of the word family in certain respects. 11. It may also be mentioned that the modern method of interpretation, as pointed out by Lord denning In his Book : "the Discipline of law", is purposive and not literal. The literal method of interpretation as pointed out by Lord Denning is out of vogue everywhere in the world and now the Courts see the intention and not the literal meaning. This view has also been accepted by our supreme Court in several decisions e. g. , in Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Ashok Vishnu Kale and others. In Administrator, Municipal Corporation v. Dattatray, the Supreme Court observed.