Hon’ble Irshad Ali, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Learned Chief Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf the respondent No. 1.

3. Sri Rajiv Singh Chauhan, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

4. Learned Standing counsel has produced the instruction received from the respondent, wherein the ground taken in the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for the grant of appointment on compassionate ground has been supported. There is nothing otherwise except the ground taken in passing of the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mother of the petitioner Late Laxmi Srivastava was posted as Headmaster in a Primary School run and managed by the Board of Basic Education, who died while in service on 13.5.2017. The petitioner is a divorced lady, who was divorced vide judgment and decree dated 8.3.2013 and since then she was residing alongwith her mother and was totally dependent upon her income.

6. As per the Government order and circular issued by the respondent-department, the petitioner applied for consideration of grant of appointment on compassionate ground. Due to non passing of the order, she filed a writ petition before this Court which was numbered as Writ Petition No. 2777 (S/S) of 2018 (Noopur Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others), which was finally disposed of with the direction to the respondents vide judgment and order dated 31.1.2018 for consideration of her claim and to pass appropriate order. In compliance of the order of this Court, the impugned order dated 11.7.2018 has been passed, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

7. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the definition of ‘dependent’ has been given under Rule 2(c) of U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 1974 Rules) and his submission is that there is no exclusion of a divorced daughter in the definition provided under the rules. In support of his submission, he has relied upon a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Kusum Devi (Smt.) v. State of U.P. and others; (2001) 3 UPLBEC 2431, which is brought on record as Annexure-9 to the writ petition inasmuch as Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Jayanti Devi, wherein the ratio of the judgment of the learned Single Judge was followed holding that a divorced lady is also included under the definition of daughter.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also invited attention of this Court on the interpretation of the word ‘includes’, which is as under:

“1. Includes — Interpretation of.—The words “includes” is often used in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of the words or phrases occurring in the body of statute. When it is so used, those words and phrases must be constructed as comprehending not only such things as they signify according to their nature and import but also those things, which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include. The word “include” is also susceptible of other construction.”

9. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that a divorced lady is not included in the definition given under the 1974 Rules, therefore, he relied upon a judgment in the case of Gudiya Awasthy v. State of U.P. and others passed in Writ Petition No. 2707 (S/S) of 2004 decided on 4.7.2011.

10. Having heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as well as the law report relied upon.

11. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the sole ground for rejection of claim of the petitioner for the grant of compassionate appointment is that she is a divorced daughter and does not come under the ambit of definition under Section 2 of 1974 Rules. Definition provided of the word ‘family’ under th