Rajendra Kumar vs State of U. P. and others

S.R. Singh, J.—The question that surfaces for determination in this petition is whether the petitioner, who happens to be the grandson of a Government servant, who died in harness, can stake claim for appointment on compassionate ground under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules. 1974?

It is beyond the pale of controversy that petitioner''s father, namely, Sri Lallu Ram predeceased Prahalad, the grandfather of the petitioner. Prahalad admittedly was working as Godown Chaukidar in the office of 4th respondent, i.e., the Senior Marketing Inspector, Maudaha, district Hamirpur and he was the only member eking out a living for the family. It would appear that the aforesaid Prahalad was spirited away by death while in harness on 10.6.1997. It would further appear that Lallu Ram, the father of the petitioner was the only son of Prahalad who as aforestated, predeceased Prahalad 10 years back. The petitioner claimed, he was dependent of his grandfather, namely, Prahalad and it is in the context of the above circumstances that the petitioner staked his claim for compassionate appointment backed by the provisions of the rules aforestated.

I have heard Dr. R. Dwivedi, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner and Sri Inder Sen Singh, standing counsel representing the opposite parties.

Dr. R. Dwivedi, began his submission canvassing that since the father of the petitioner had breathed his last during the lifetime of his father Prahalad, the petitioner fell back upon his grandfather for dependence and, therefore, he would be treated to be a member of the "family" of the deceased Government servant for the purposes of the aforesaid rules. The learned standing counsel, on the other hand, counteracted the submission stating that the grandson is not included in the definition of the term "family" as defined in Rule 2 (c) of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (to be abbreviated as the ''Rules'') which apply to recruitment of dependents of the deceased Government Servants to Public Services and post in connection with the affairs of the Uttar Pradesh except the services and posts which are within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and have, later on, been placed within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission. According to Rule 4, these rules and any order issued thereunder, shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any rules, regulations or orders in force at the commencement of these rules. Rule 5 of the Rules provides for compassionate appointment of a member of the "family" of a deceased. The rule being germane to the controversy involved in the petition is excerpted below.

"5. Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased.--In case a Government servant dies in harness after the commencement of these rules, one member of his family who 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 shall, on making an application for the purpose, be given a suitable employment in Government service which is not within the purview of the State Public Service Commission in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules, provided such member fulfils the educational qualifications prescribed for the post and is also otherwise qualified for Government service. Such employment should be given without delay and, as far as possible, in the same department in which the deceased Government servant was employed prior to his death."

The word ''family'', according to Rule 2 (c) of the Rules includes the fallowing relations of the deceased Government servant :

(i) wife or husband ;

(ii) sons ;

(iii) unmarried and widowed daughters.

The question remains whether the grandson of a Government servant dying-in-harness can in the given situation, be treated to be a member of the family as defined in Rule 2 (c) of the Rules. It bears no repudiation that the Legislature has power to define the word even artificially and so the definition of a word in the definition clause of a statute may either be restrictive of its ordinary meaning or it may be extensive of the same. Normally, when a word is defined to "mean" such and such, the definition is prima facie restrictive and extensive whereas, where the word defined is declared to "include" such and such, the definition is prima facie extensive. Justice G. P. Singh in his Book "Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 6th Edn. has succinctly expounded the proposition as under: "The word ''includes'' is often used in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of the words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute. When it is so used these words and phrases must be construed as comprehending not only such thing as they signify according to their nature and import but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include."

The petitioner, in the instant case, was dependent to the hilt on the grandfather-Prahalad inasmuch as the father of the petitioner had died during the lifetime of Prahalad. Regard being had to the inclusive definition of the term ''family'' as defined in, and object sought served by the Rules. I am persuaded to the view that in the fact-situation of the present case, the petitioner ought to be treated as a member of the "family" of the deceased Government servant who died in-harness and, therefore, the petitioner should be held to be entitled to claim compassionate appointment under the aforesaid rules. The contrary contention brought to bear by the standing counsel that since the grandson is not specifically included in the term "family" as defined in Rule 2 (c), the petitioner is not entitled to claim compassionate appointment, does not commend itself to be countenanced. The Court would have been least inclined to view with favour the position, had the father of the petitioner been alive.

As a result of the foregoing discussion, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to give suitable appointment to the petitioner under the provisions of the Rules aforestated within a span of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the 4th respondent or any other appropriate authority as the case may be.