Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—Noticing conflict in the view taken by two coordinate Benches in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Rajendra Kumar, 2000 (1) AWC 155 and Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Hardoi v. Madhu Mishra and others, 2009 (27) LCD 995 , a third coordinate Bench has referred the following question for decision by a Larger Bench :

“Whether the definition of ‘family’ in Rule 2 (c) of U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 is inclusive or exhaustive.”

2. U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (herein after referred as 1974 Rules) has been framed in exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India providing for recruitment of dependants of deceased Government Servant to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State of U.P. except the post, which are within the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission, in relaxation of the normal rules of recruitment applicable to such public services and posts.. The appointment made under the provisions of 1974 Rules in common parlance is known as appointment on compassionate ground.

3. In accordance with Rule 5 of 1974 Rules, a member of the family of the Government servant dying-in-harness can be given suitable appointment in Government service on a post which is outside the purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules subject to the condition that spouse of the deceased Government servant is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government and he fulfils the educational qualification prescribed for the post and is otherwise qualified for Government service. Consideration for such appointment is subject to an application being made in this regard within five years from the date of death of the Government servant though State Government is vested with the power to relax time limit on being satisfied that such time limit causes undue hardship in any particular case. The word ‘family’ used in Rule 5 has been defined in Rule 2 (c). At the time of incorporation of the Rules 1974 only wife or husband, sons, unmarried and widowed daughters were included in the definition of family. The definition has been subject-matter of amendment from time to time and the definition as it stands now is quoted here under :

“(c) “family” shall include the following relations of the deceased Government servant;

(i) wife or husband;

(ii) sons/adopted sons;

(iii) unmarried daughters, unmarried adopted daughters, widowed daughters and widowed daughters-in-law

(iv) unmarried brothers, unmarried sisters and widowed mother dependent on the deceased Government servant, if the deceased Government servant was unmarried;

(v) aforementioned relations of such missing Government servant who has been declared as “dead” by the competent Court; provided that if a person belonging to any of the above mentioned relations of the deceased Government servant is not available or is found to be physically and mentally unfit and thus ineligible for employment in Government service, then only in such situation the word “family” shall also include grandsons and the unmarried grand daughters of the deceased Government servant dependent on him.”

4. Thus, the members of the family of a deceased Government servant who can be considered for granting compassionate appointment have been specified in the rules. Apart from other conditions enumerated in the rules for consideration of compassionate appointment, such member of the family should also be a dependent on the deceased Government servant.

5. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Rajendra Kumar (supra) while considering the claim of a grandson of the deceased Government servant, even though grandson was not included in the definition of the family as i