IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 144 of 2009 Elma Devi …..…… Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents Coram:- Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Present: Mr. Hem Chandra Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. P.C.Bisht, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Date of Decision: 11.03.2010 J.S. Khehar, C.J. (Oral) Through the instant special appeal, the appellant has assailed the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 22.08.2008, whereby Writ Petition (S/S) No. 600 of 2004 filed by the appellant, was dismissed. 2. The sequence of facts depicted in the pleadings of the instant case reveal, that the father of the appellant Jabar Singh died on 23.03.2001. The appellant sought appointment on compassionate grounds under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 1974 Rules), as applicable to the State of Uttarakhand. Rule 2(c) of the 1974 Rules defines the term “family”. Rule 2(c) is being extracted hereunder for facility of reference:- “2. Definitions.- In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires- (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 mother dependant on the deceased Government servant; 2 3. A perusal of aforesaid rule reveals, that the family of an employee, who dies in harness, includes inter alia unmarried and widowed daughters. Undisputedly, the appellant was a daughter of deceased Jabar Singh who died in harness on 23.03.2001. Despite the aforesaid, the question to be determined is whether the appellant would be entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds under the 1974 Rules. In so far as the instant issue is concerned, it is not disputed that at the time of death of the father of the appellant on 23.03.2001, she was married to Khajan Singh. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it is apparent that on the date of the death of her father Jabar Singh, the appellant could not be included within the meaning of the term “family” as defined in Section 2(c) of 1974 Rules. The appellant, not being a member of the family of the deceased Jabar Singh at the time of his death, was certainly not entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds after the death of her father on 23.03.2001. 4. In view of the above, we are satisfied that there is no infirmity, whatsoever, in the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 22.08.2008, dismissing the Writ Petition (S/S) No. 600 of 2004. 5. In view of the above, the instant special appeal is dismissed. Since the instant special appeal itself has been dismissed on merit, it is not necessary to pass a formal order on the application for condonantion of delay in filing the instant special appeal. The same is accordingly disposed of in terms of the order passed by us hereinabove. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 11.03.2010 P. Singh