Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

A Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of U. P. & others Vs. Rajendra Kumar (supra) while considering the claim of a grandson of the deceased Government servant, even though grandson was not included in the definition of the family as it then stood, held that definition was inclusive and a grand son is entitled to be extended the benefit of the Rules.

However, another Division Bench in the case of Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Hardoi Vs. Madhu Mishra (supra) while considering the case of a widowed daughter-in-law for being considered for compassionate appointment held that inclusive definition is often used in the definition clause in order to enlarge the meaning of the word but the said principle does not contemplate inclusion of such persons who have no nexus with description of relations mentioned in the Rules, and adding widowed daughter-in-law would mean holding something in the Rule which the Rule making authority did not intend to include. Though the Bench did not categorically observed that definition is exhaustive but in effect meant the same. It is relevant to point out that when the aforesaid decision was rendered in April, 2009 widowed daughter-in-law was not included in the definition of family. It was subsequently added by way of 9th amendment Rules 2011 notified vide Gazette Notification dated 22.12.2011.