By the Court.—Petitioner’s claims for allotment of Fair Price Shop as dependent of deceased’s fair price shop dealer. The claim has been rejected on the ground that definition of ‘dependents’ defined in Government Order dated 7.4.2004 does not include grandson.

2. It is contended that definition of “members of family” is illustrative and therefore, the grandson should also be deemed to be included therein. Reliance has been placed on decision of this Court in Urmila Devi v. Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd., 2003 (3) UPLBEC 2582. In the writ petition for the purpose of definition of “family members”/’relatives’, petitioner has relied on Government Order dated 17th August, 2002 and has filed a copy thereof as Annexure 6 to the writ petition.

3. In the counter-affidavit, respondents have appended a copy of Government Order dated 7.4.2004, which according to them would hold the field in the case in hand. Relevant extract of aforesaid Government Order reads as under :

Þmi;qZDr fo"k;d 'kklukns'k la[;k & 2714@29&6&2002&162 lk0 2002 fnukad&17 vxLr] 2002 ,oa 'kklukns'k la[;k&2715@29&6&2002&162 lk0@2001] fnukad 17 vxLr] 2002 dk d`i;k lUnHkZ xzg.k djsa ftuds dze'k% izLrj&7 ,oa izLrj&10 esa e`rd vkfJr ds :i esa iRuh] iq= rFkk vfookfgr iq=h dks lfEefyr fd;k x;k gSA

2& bl laca/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd lE;d fopkjksijkUr ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd mfpr nj nqdkuksa ds vkoaVu esa e`rd vkfJr ds :i esa iRuh] iq= ,oa vfookfgr iq=h ds vfrfjDr e`rd vkfJr ij fuHkZj vfookfgr cgu vkSj fo/kok ekrk] ;fn e`r jk'ku nqdkunkj vfookfgr FkkA dks Hkh lfEefyr fd;k tk;sA

3& d`i;k lkoZtfud forj.k iz.kkyh ds vUrxZr xzkeh.k@uxjh; {ks= dh mfpr nj dh nqdkuksa ds vkoaVu ds lEcU/k esa 'kklukns'k fnukad&17 vxLr] 2002 ds lEcfU/kr izLrjksa dks mDr lhek rd la'kksfèkr le>k tk;sA 'kklukns'kksa esa vU; 'krsZ ;Fkkor jgsxhAß

(Emphasis added)

“Kindly refer to G.O. No. 2714/29-6-2002-162 Sa 2002, dated 1 7th August, 2002 and G.O. No. 2715/29-06-2002-162 Sa/2001, dated 17th August, 2002 on the above mentioned subject; in paras 7 and 10 whereof wife, son and unmarried daughter have been included as dependants of deceased.

2. In this respect I am directed to say that it has been decided after due cosideration that in case of fair price shopkeeper being unmarried, in the allotment of fair price shops, besides wife, son and unmarried daughter, unmarried sister and widowed mother dependent on the deceased be also included as dependants of the deceased.

3. As regards the allotment of fair price shops in rural/urban area under the Public Distribution System, concerned paras of Government Order dated 17th August, 2002 may please be taken to have been amended to the said extent. Other terms contained in the Government Orders shall remain as they are.”

(English translation by this Court)

4. It clearly shows that earlier, dependents of deceased were wife, son and un-married daughter. Subsequently, in the description of dependents of deceased un-married sister, widowed mother have also been included. This inclusion has been made in paragraphs No. 7 and 10 of earlier Government order No. 2714/29-6-2002-162 sa 2002, dated 17th August, 2002. A copy of Government Order dated 17th August, 2002 is on record as Annexure 5 to the writ petition and relevant extract of paragraph No. 10 thereof reads as under :

Þ10- xzkeh.k {ks= esa jk'ku dh nqdkuksa dk p;u fuEufyf[kr vfuok;Z vgZrkvksa ,oa 'krksaZ dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, fd;k tk;sxk %&

¼d½ &&&&&&&&&&&&

¼>½ ;fn nqdkunkj vPNh [;kfr dk gks rks mldh e`R;q ds mijkUr nqdku dk vkoaVu mlds vkfJr ds djus ij fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA vkfJr dk rkRi;Z iRuh] iq= rFkk vfookfgr iq=h ls gSAß

(Emphasis added).

“10. Selection of ration shops in the rural area shall be done, taking into account the following mandatory qualifications and terms :

(A) ..................................................

(I) In case of shopkeeper being of good repute, consideration may be given to the allotment of the shop to his dependant subsequent to his death. Dependan