The relaxation under the Dying-in-Harness Rules is admissible only in favor of the widow, son, or unmarried daughter of an employee who dies while in service, and that the relaxation is admissible only where none of the members of the family, namely, widow, son, or unmarried daughter, is gainfully employed.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is claiming appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules as provided in the life Insurance Corporation Recruitment (of Class III and Class IV Staff) Instruction, 1979 on the ground that his two brothers who are gainfully employed are not supporting the petitioner. It is alleged that the said two sons of the deceased were married before the death of the deceased and were living separately and were ceased to be members of the family. In such circumstances. Mr. Kamlesh Mishra holding brief of Mr. S. C. Verma submits that the writ petition should be allowed.

( 2 ) MR. Manish Goel learned counsel for the respondents, on the other contends that the said recruitment Instruction in paragraph 22 clause (ii) provides that such relaxation shall be admissible only in favour of the widow, son or unmarried daughter of an employee while In service. While clause (iii) provides that it would be admissible only when none of the members of the family, namely, widow or unmarried daughter is gainfully employed, In the present case, two sons of the deceased have been gainfully employed and one of them is in the Corporation itself. The case comes wholly outside the purview of the said paragraph 22. He relied on the decision in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (Mrs.) and another, (1994) 2 SCO 718, in support of his contention. He also points out from annexure-14 to the writ petition that the son is living in the same house but he was not supporting the family. He contends that the son is living with the family.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to him, it is a disputed question directed as to whether the sons are supporting the family or not. The statutory provisions or instructions are to be followed to the extent it is admissible in law, however, hard the case may be. In case of hardship on account of inability of anyone of the members of the family does not enable the petitioner to get appointment under the said recruitment rules. It is not possible for the Corporation to decide as to whether the gainfully employed member of the family is supporting the family or not. If such view is taken, in that event it will open a Pandoras Box. Therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed.

( 4 ) I have heard both the counsel at length.

( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY, two sons of the deceased are gainfully employed. Paragraph 22 clearly states that this provision is admissible to the members of the family as defined to widow, son or unmarried daughter. While daughter has been qualified with the expression unmarried and son has been omitted to be qualified. Marriage of a son does not make the son cease to be a member of the family whereas marriage of a daughter makes the daughter cease to be a member of the family. Further, it provides that such relaxation is admissible in a case where none of the members of the family namely, widow, son or unmarried daughter is gainfully employed. This is apparent from clauses (ii) and (iii) of paragraph 22 of the said instruction as quoted below :

" (it) Such relaxation shall be admissible only in favour of widow, son and unmarried daughter of an employee who dies while in service. (iii) The relaxation shall be admissible only where none of the members of the family--widow, son or unmarried daughter is gainfully employed. "

( 6 ) A plain reading of the said paragraph shows that the son has not been qualified. Therefore, if he is married, the same could not make him cease to be a member of the family. Then again, it is also not clarified that such son if does not support the family, then this provision would be allowed to another son. If such an interpretation is given, it would be stretching the instruction contained in Clause (iii) too far. The interpretation of a particular provision has to be confined within the Intention of the instruction as conveyed to the language used in order to accept the interpretation sought to be made by Mr. Mishra would be stretching the same to