Advocates:
['RAM NIWAS SINGH', '', 'V K S CHANDEL', 'N D RAI', '', 'S C']

Court No. - 34

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 39088 of 2001

Petitioner :- Smt. Poonam Devi

Respondent :- The District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur &

Another

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Niwas Singh,V.K.S. Chandel

Counsel for Respondent :- N.D. Rai,S.C.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

1.

Heard Sri V.K.S.Chandel learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2.

Admittedly compassionate appointment was sought by

petitioner, daughter-in-law of deceased government servant

Munsiram, who died in harness while working on the post of Head

Master in Primary School Chakraut, Tehsil and Block Kerakat, District

Jaunpur on 02.10.2000.

3.

It is contended that though daughter-in-law as such is not

mentioned in definition of 'family' under Rule 2(c) of U.P.

Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants (Dying-in-

Harness) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules 1974") but

since it is inclusive definition, therefore, daughter-in-law must be

deemed to be included therein. Respondents in denying

compassionate appointment on the ground that daughter-in-law is

not within definition of 'family' have erred in law.

4.

Opposing the above contention, learned Standing Counsel

contended that Rules relating to compassionate appointment are

exception to fundamental right of equality under Article 16 of

Constitution of India, hence Rules cannot be extended but must be

read strictly.

5.

In order to appreciate contention, it is necessary to refer to

provisions of "Rules 1974". Rule 5 of Rules 1974 relates to

recruitment of a member of family of deceased. The word 'family'

2

used in Rule 5 has been defined in Rule 2 (c). At the time of

incorporation of 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:

"2(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."

6.

A perusal of definition indicates that definition is inclusive and

is not meant to cover all relations of deceased. The purpose of rule is

to give appointment on compassionate grounds. A grandson

therefore, is not included within the definition of 'family'.

7.

A Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Km. Shehnaj

Begum vs. State Of U.P. And Others (Special Appeal No. 1343 of

2011), has held that definition of "Family" given under Rules, 1974 is

exhaustive and cannot be stretched to add any other member of

family. The object of appointment under Rules, 1974 is to relieve

dependents of deceased employee from financial hardship faced by

them on account of death of sole bread earner. Full Bench

3

considering the object of the Rules, 1974 has further observed that;-

"The purpose of framing 1974 Rules is to relieve the family of a

deceased Government servant from immediate financial distress

but for this objective, the same would not have withstood the test

of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India guaranting

equal opportun