IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 1127 of 2002 Navin Kumar Goel …….Petitioner. Versus Registrar, High Court of Uttaranchal and others …Respondents. None for the petitioner. None for the respondents. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. List revised. Case called out twice. None appears for the petitioner and for any of the respondents including the High Court. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has prayed that he should be given appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. The case of the petitioner is that the brother of the petitioner namely Pawan Kumar Goel was appointed as a clerk at the district court of Bageshwar on 10.5.2000. The brother of the petitioner met with an accident on 17/18-11-2000 as a result of which he died. At the time of his death, brother of the petitioner/deceased was unmarried and the petitioner was totally dependent on his brother. He, hence, filed the present writ petition claiming that he is a member of the family of the deceased and is liable to get appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules. The writ petition has been opposed by means of filing of the counter affidavit on behalf of the District Judge, Bageshwar wherein, inter alia, it has been stated that the claim for appointment of the petitioner under dying in harness cannot be considered inasmuch as the 2 petitioner does not come under the definition of the member of family. The Dying in Harness Rules have been perused. The accident in fact occurred on 17/18-11-2000. On the said date the word “family” as it is defined under Section 2 (c) of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 reads as under :- “2. Definitions. In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires : (a) …. (b) … (c) “family” shall include the following relations of the deceased Government servant : (i) Wife or husband; (ii) Sons; (iii) Unmarried and widowed daughters;” Indeed there was an amendment in the said definition dated 12.10.2001 by the State of Uttar Pradesh whereby under the new definition of “family, it reads as under :- (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;” However, since firstly this amendment has been done after the appointed date i.e. 9.11.2000 i.e. the date on which State of Uttarakhand came into existence or was formed, the same shall have no application as far as the State of Uttarakhand is concerned. On the relevant date i.e. 18.11.2000 the definition of “family” excluded the brother of the deceased even though the deceased was unmarried on the said date. 3 As such, the petitioner cannot be granted appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 as they stand in the State of Uttarakhand. The writ petition therefore is liable to be dismissed and is presently being dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 5.3.2010 Avneet