IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 220 of 2006 (S/S) Bhagat Singh S/o Sri Prem Singh ..……… Petitioner. Versus Nagar Nigam Dehradun and others ……… Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. N.K. Papnoi, the learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. M.C. Pant, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner alleges to be the grandson of the deceased and had filed an application for appointment on compassionate grounds under the relevant dying-in-harness rules. The application of the petitioner was rejected by an order dated 20th April, 2004. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the grandson would come within the meaning of word “family” as defined under Rule 2 of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying In Harness Rules, 1974 and, therefore, the petitioner’s application was liable to be considered by the opposite party. In order to appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the definition of “family” as defined under Rule 2 (c) of the Rules of 1974 is extracted hereunder:- [(c)] “family” shall include the following relations of the deceased Government servant: (i) Wife or husband; (ii) Sons; (iii) Unmarried and widowed daughters; (iv) If the deceased was unmarried Government servant, brother, unmarried sister and widowed 2 mother dependant on the deceased Government servant;] A perusal of the aforesaid rules indicates that wife or husband or sons or unmarried widowed daughter of the deceased government servant are permitted to apply for appointment under the dying-in-harness rules. Grandson is not included in the said definition. The petitioner has not been able to point out as to whether any amendment in the said Rule has been made which includes grandson within the definition of the word “family” under Rule 2 (c) of the dying-in-harness rules. In view of the aforesaid, this court does not find any error in the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 03.05.2010 Shiv