By the Court.—A petition, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20938 of 2002, was filed by Smt.Urmila Devi, respondent herein, daughter-in-law of the deceased Kishun Lal, who died in harness on 21.4.1999. Kishun Lal, at the time of his death, was employed as Painter in the Electricity Transmission Division II of the U.P. Power Corporation, Allahabad. Anil Kumar, husband of the respondent predeceased his father. Late Kishun Lal was survived by the respondent herein and two children, i.e. one son and one daughter. After the death of Kishun Lal, his daughter-in-law Urmila Devi, respondent herein, applied for compassionate appointment, which was declined by order dated 22.4.2002 on the premise that she did not fall within the definition of ‘family’ as given under the U.P. State Electricity Board Dying in Harness Rules, 1975* (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’). That order was the subject matter of consideration before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, after considering the definition of ‘family’ and various judgments, was pleased to allow the petition by order dated 9.9.2003 holding that a widowed daughter-in-law would fall within the definition of family. This is the order which had been challenged in the special appeal.

2. At the time of hearing of the appeal, various judgments were cited on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant — Power Corporation before the learned Appellate Bench for the proposition that where a discretion to grant compassionate appointment is vested in a particular office holder, the writ Court can, at best, direct the consideration of the case of an otherwise entitled dependant, but it cannot, by itself, direct the appointment to be made by issuing a writ of mandamus.

3. On behalf of the writ petitioner-respondent, reliance was placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in State of U.P. and others v. Rajendra Kumar, 2000 (1) AWC 155, where the Rule considered was of appointment on compassionate basis in the State Government. The learned Appellate Bench, then, considered the meaning of the expression ‘family shall include’ and thereafter was pleased to observe as under :

“In a similar way, in the present context, it is our opinion that the word ‘include’, although usually prefixing an illustrative category, here prefixes an exclusive one. As such, the matter is referred to the Hon’ble Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench; until the said decision the order under appeal will have to remain stayed as contempt application is pending. Stay order passed accordingly.”

4. We find, however, that the learned Bench has really not framed the question for consideration by this Bench. From the observations made, however, it appears that the learned Appellate Bench did not agree with the view taken in the case of Rajendra Kumar (supra). In that light of the matter, the question for our consideration would be:

“Whether the definition of ‘family’ under the Rules would include a daughter-in-law?

5. There is no dispute that the definition of family under the Rules, does not include a daughter-in-law though it includes a widowed daughter.

6. We may mention that, at the preliminary hearing, our attention was invited to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Hardoi v. Madhu Mishra and others, 2009 (27) LCD 995 : 2010(2) ADJ 13 (NOC)(DB)(LB), where the question for consideration was ‘whether a widowed daughter-in-law can claim appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules. The learned Bench, after considering the definition of the word ‘family’, was pleased to hold that the decisions in Smt. Urmila Devi v. U.P. Power Corporation and others, 2003 (4) AWC 3205, & Sanyogita Rai (Smt.) v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2006(5) ADJ 501, are not in conformity with the well settled principles of law and they are, accordingly, overruled. In other words, the judgment in Urmila Devi (supra) no longer subsists. It is, ther