Hon’ble Shishir Kumar, J.—By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 12.4.2002 for giving appointment under Dying in Harness Rules.

2. During pendency of the writ petition, an order-dated 15.11.2002 was passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Then an amendment application was filed. The said application has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 10.5.2006 and a relief of certiorari quashing the order dated 15.11.2002 has been prayed.

3. The present case is a very unfortunate case in which seven persons of the petitioner’s family has been murdered at one time. Only petitioner and her old grand mother-in-law Smt. Gena Devi survives. On 22.11.2001, the petitioner lost her husband, her father-in-law, her mother-in-law and four other family members of the family. The father-in-law of the petitioner late Rakesh Chandra Rai was posted as cashier in District Cooperative Bank, Kauri Ram, Gorakhpur. The husband of the petitioner was the only son of late Sri Rakesh Chandra Rai, who was also murdered on the said unfortunate day. The petitioner was fully dependent upon his father-in-law on the date of murder. There is no person in the family to maintain, as such, the petitioner made an application before the respondent No.3 being the only surviving heir of her family for compassionate appointment. The petitioner is a graduate lady. After repeated request and representations made by the petitioner, the respondents have not given appointment to the petitioner. Then the petitioner had filed the present writ petition and when the counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, an order dated 15.11.2002 was annexed by which it has been stated that the claim of the petitioner has already been rejected and the ground of rejection by the respondents was that according to U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975, Regulation 104 defines ‘family’ and as the petitioner does not come under the definition of ‘family’, therefore, her claim cannot be considered and as such, is hereby rejected. It is also to be noted that the respondent No. 4 Smt. Renu Rai, who is the daughter of late Rakesh Chandra Rai also claims appointment. From the record, it is clear that she is a married daughter, therefore, married daughter does not come under the definition of ‘family’ as such, she is not entitled to get an appointment.

4. The Counsel for the petitioner began his submission canvassing that since the petitioner was fully dependent upon his father-in-law, therefore, she will be treated to be a member of a family of the deceased who was working as a cashier in the respondent’s bank.

5. The Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment reported in 2003 (4) AWC 3205, Smt. Urmila Devi v. U.P. Power Corporation and others. The Counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that as the daughter-in-law is not included in the definition of word ‘family’ as defined in the relevant Dying in Harness Rules, which is applicable to Recruitment of Dependents of the deceased government servants. The relevant rule, which in controversy is abstracted below for ready reference :

¼x½ ÞdqVqEcß ds vUrxZr e`r ifj’knh; lsod ds fuEufyf[kr lEcU/kh gksaxs&

¼1½ iRuh ;k ifr

¼2½ iq=]

¼3½ vfookfgr iqf=;k¡ rFkk fo/kok iqf=;k¡A

6. In view of the aforesaid fact, the question for consideration is whether the petitioner can be taken to be the family member of the deceased in the fact- situation of the case. From the perusal of the aforesaid rule, it transpires that the word “family” has been interpreted to signify and include wife or husband, son, unmarried daughter and widowed daughter. The word ‘include’ has been interpreted in various decisions and has been observed by the Apex Court is that the use of word “include”, would enlarge the scope of the definition in Municipal Corporation of Greater