HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.138 of 2007 (S/S) Smt. Sur Suti Widow of Sri Munni Lal … Petitioner Versus Establishment Officer G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pant Nagar District U. S. Ngar & another … Respondents Dated:- 18th May, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Manoj Tiwari, the learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Alok Mehra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajendra Dobhal, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Geeta Parihar, the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The father-in-law of the petitioner i.e. Nanhu was a regular employee in the G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pant Nagar, Udham Singh Nagar and died in harness on 11th January, 1996 leaving behind the petitioner and her minor children as the only legal heirs of the deceased. The petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the deceased employee and her husband had died much earlier to the death of the petitioner’s father in law. Upon the death of the petitioner’s husband, the petitioner was supported by her father in law. 3. Upon the death of the petitioner’s father in law, the petitioner moved an application on 15th April, 1996 for an appointment on compassionate grounds. Since the application of the petitioner remained pending, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No.885 of 2004 (S/S), which was disposed of by an order dated 09th March, 2006 directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 4. Based on the aforesaid direction, the respondents by an order dated 18th August, 2006 rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the daughter in law is not defined as a dependant in the 2 scheme adopted by the respondents for appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. 5. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed in which a scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds has been annexed. Chapter XIII(1)(d) of the Statutes of the University provides for appointment of a dependant of a deceased employee on compassionate grounds. For facility, the said provision is extracted hereunder:- “(d) A dependent (wife or husband, son unmarried daughter and widowed daughter) of an employee of the University who meets with untimely death or gets permanent disability during the service period may be appointed on any non-teaching post for which he / she is suitable and fulfils the minimum qualifications, without selection procedure. WITH THE PROVISO THAT: (i) The above facility will be given to only the dependents of employees who have put in at least 3 years continuous service in the University and only if there is no other earning member in the family of the deceased. (ii) If there are more than one member in the family of deceased, desirous to get employment then the appointing authority shall select one of such persons on the basis of suitability particularly considering the interest of his widow and minor members of the family of the deceased. (iii) Such appointment shall be made only against an existing vacancy.” 6. The learned senior counsel for the respondents submitted that the aforesaid provision indicates that a wife or husband, son, unmarried daughter or widowed daughter is only included as a dependant of an employee and that a daughter in law has not been included and, therefore, the petitioner is not covered as a dependant under the said 3 scheme and, consequently, no appointment could be made in favour of the petitioner. 7. Similar provision has been given in Rule 2(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred as Rules of 1974). For facility, the provision of Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1974 is quoted hereunder:- “2(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;” 8. The said provision was considered by a division bench of the Allahabad High Court in Zila Panchayat, Kaushambi & another Vs. Lalti Devi & another 2008 (1) A.W.C. 1035 in which it was held that Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1974 is not exhaustive and the said definition is inclusive. Similar view was taken in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Rajendra Kumar & others 2000 (1) A.W.C. 155, Manoj Kumar Saxena Vs. District Magistrate, Bareilly & others 2000 (2) ESC 967 and Smt. Urmila Devi Vs. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. 2004 (2) ESC 180. A division bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Lalti Devi (supra) further held that a daughter in law, who becomes a member of a family of her husband, is included in the definition of ‘family’ of father in law and after his death, in the absence of any other legal heir, she is entitled to claim compassionate appointment. The said decision is squarely applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. The court finds that the clause (d) of Chapter XIII of the Statutes of the University is not exhaustive in nature and the dependants shown in the said clause in only inclusive. In the present case, the Court finds that the petitioner is the sole heir of the deceased father in law and was also being supported by the said deceased. In the opinion 4 of the Court, the petitioner, being dependant upon the deceased, becomes a member of the family and was entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted to the authority concerned to consider and decide the application of the petitioner on merit in accordance with law within three months from the date of the production of the certified copy of this order. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 18.05.2010 LSR