# Smt. Sandhya Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 6 ILRA 549
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-05-27
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 10297 of 2021
- **Bench:** Ravi Nath Tilhari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sandhya-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47129
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment
-
U.P.
Recruitment
of
Dependents
of
Government
Servants
(Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 - Rule 2(c)
- U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 -
Regulations 103, 107, Section 16-G.

Words and Phrases - "Member of the
Family" - Regulation 103 - "Member of the
family" as per the "explanation" given in
Regulation 103, means widow/widower, son,
unmarried or divorced daughter of the deceased
employee. On a plain reading of Regulation 103,
'married daughter' is not covered under the
expression "member of the family". (Para 11,
15)

Words and Phrases - 'तात्पर्य' - The
expression "member of family" in Regulation
103, uses the word 'तात्पर्य'. In legal Glossary,
4th Edition 1988, published by the Central
Government, Department of Law and Justice,
the English meaning of 'तात्पर्य' is, i) purport; ii)
tenor. The meaning of "purport", in the same
Legal Glossary, is "to mean; to have its purport;
to profess or claim by its tenor", and the
meaning of "Tenor" in the same Legal Glossary
is "apparent". (Para 12)

In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary Fifth Edition by
John S. James, one of the meanings of the word
"tenor" is to recite verbatim i.e. exactly as it is
spoken or written. Supreme Court has held that
'purporting' is indicative of what appears on the
face of it or is apparent even though in law it
may not be so. (Para 13, 14)

Interpretation of Regulation 103 - The
English meaning of 'तात्पर्य' is "to mean", and the
use of this expression in "member of family" in
Regulation 103 makes only those persons
member of family, which are "apparent". Those
who are included are apparent and those who
are not included are not apparent and cannot be
the member of family in Regulation 103.
'Member of family' in Regulation 103 is
therefore exhaustive of the list of members
mentioned therein, as, had it been the intention
of the Regulation making authority, to bring
within the 'member of family' the 'married
daughter', it would have been included in the
like
manner
other
relations
have
been
specifically included. Apparently, "married
550 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
daughter" is not included and is not
entitled
for
appointment
on
compassionate ground. (Para 15, 18, 19)

B. Words and Phrases - 'means', 'includes' -
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a particular
expression is often defined by the Legislature by
using the word 'means' or the word 'includes'.
Sometimes the words 'means and includes' are
used. The use of the word 'means' indicates that
the "definition is a hard-and-fast definition. And no
other meaning can be assigned to the expression
that is put down in definition." (Para 15)

Interpretation of statute - U. P. Recruitment
of Dependants of Government Servant
Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 - Rule 2(c) -
The Hon'ble Full Bench of Allahabad High Court
has held that the definition of 'family' in Rule 2(c)
is exhaustive, in spite of the fact that the word
'includes' was used in the rule. The Hon'ble Full
Bench held that 'includes', was used in the sense
of 'means' as by specifying the relatives in
reference to family the intention appeared to be to
make the definition exhaustive. (Para 16)

Smt. Vimla Srivastava (infra) held Rule 2(c) to be
illegal and unconstitutional for being violative of
Article 14 and 15, for not including 'married
daughter' in the expression 'family'. Petitioner's
submission to apply the same ratio to the present
case was not considered as Smt. Vimla Srivastava
(infra) did not notice Sunita Bhadauriya (infra),
which
negatived
the
challenge
to
the
constitutionality of Rule 2(c) on the same ground.
Court observed that in the present case there is no
challenge to the vires of Regulation 103 as regards
definition of 'member of family'. (Para 21, 22)

Liberty to file fresh writ petition including the
prayer to challenge the vires of Regulation 103 of
the Regulations, is granted.

Writ petition disposed off. (E-3)

Precedent followed:

## Text

6 All. Smt. Sandhya Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
549

(5)The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad or certified copy issued from the
Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

(6) The concerned Court /Authority
/Official shall verify the authenticity of
such computerized copy of the order from
the
official
website
of
High
Court
Allahabad and shall make a declaration of
such verification in writing

11. It may be observed that in the
event of any breach of the aforesaid
conditions, the court below shall be at
liberty to proceed for the cancellation of
applicant's bail.

12. It is clarified that the observations,
if any, made in this order are strictly
confined to the disposal of the bail
application and must not be construed to
have any reflection on the ultimate merits
of the case.
----------
(2021)06ILR A549
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.05.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Service Single No. 10297 of 2021

Smt. Sandhya Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Arun Kumar Verma, Arun Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment
-
U.P.
Recruitment
of
Dependents
of
Government
Servants
(Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 - Rule 2(c)
- U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 -
Regulations 103, 107, Section 16-G.

Words and Phrases - "Member of the
Family" - Regulation 103 - "Member of the
family" as per the "explanation" given in
Regulation 103, means widow/widower, son,
unmarried or divorced daughter of the deceased
employee. On a plain reading of Regulation 103,
'married daughter' is not covered under the
expression "member of the family". (Para 11,
15)

Words and Phrases - 'तात्पर्य' - The
expression "member of family" in Regulation
103, uses the word 'तात्पर्य'. In legal Glossary,
4th Edition 1988, published by the Central
Government, Department of Law and Justice,
the English meaning of 'तात्पर्य' is, i) purport; ii)
tenor. The meaning of "purport", in the same
Legal Glossary, is "to mean; to have its purport;
to profess or claim by its tenor", and the
meaning of "Tenor" in the same Legal Glossary
is "apparent". (Para 12)

In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary Fifth Edition by
John S. James, one of the meanings of the word
"tenor" is to recite verbatim i.e. exactly as it is
spoken or written. Supreme Court has held that
'purporting' is indicative of what appears on the
face of it or is apparent even though in law it
may not be so. (Para 13, 14)

Interpretation of Regulation 103 - The
English meaning of 'तात्पर्य' is "to mean", and the
use of this expression in "member of family" in
Regulation 103 makes only those persons
member of family, which are "apparent". Those
who are included are apparent and those who
are not included are not apparent and cannot be
the member of family in Regulation 103.
'Member of family' in Regulation 103 is
therefore exhaustive of the list of members
mentioned therein, as, had it been the intention
of the Regulation making authority, to bring
within the 'member of family' the 'married
daughter', it would have been included in the
like
manner
other
relations
have
been
specifically included. Apparently, "married
550 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
daughter" is not included and is not
entitled
for
appointment
on
compassionate ground. (Para 15, 18, 19)

B. Words and Phrases - 'means', 'includes' -
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a particular
expression is often defined by the Legislature by
using the word 'means' or the word 'includes'.
Sometimes the words 'means and includes' are
used. The use of the word 'means' indicates that
the "definition is a hard-and-fast definition. And no
other meaning can be assigned to the expression
that is put down in definition." (Para 15)

Interpretation of statute - U. P. Recruitment
of Dependants of Government Servant
Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 - Rule 2(c) -
The Hon'ble Full Bench of Allahabad High Court
has held that the definition of 'family' in Rule 2(c)
is exhaustive, in spite of the fact that the word
'includes' was used in the rule. The Hon'ble Full
Bench held that 'includes', was used in the sense
of 'means' as by specifying the relatives in
reference to family the intention appeared to be to
make the definition exhaustive. (Para 16)

Smt. Vimla Srivastava (infra) held Rule 2(c) to be
illegal and unconstitutional for being violative of
Article 14 and 15, for not including 'married
daughter' in the expression 'family'. Petitioner's
submission to apply the same ratio to the present
case was not considered as Smt. Vimla Srivastava
(infra) did not notice Sunita Bhadauriya (infra),
which
negatived
the
challenge
to
the
constitutionality of Rule 2(c) on the same ground.
Court observed that in the present case there is no
challenge to the vires of Regulation 103 as regards
definition of 'member of family'. (Para 21, 22)

Liberty to file fresh writ petition including the
prayer to challenge the vires of Regulation 103 of
the Regulations, is granted.

Writ petition disposed off. (E-3)

Precedent followed:

1. Azimunnissa & ors. Vs The Deputy Custodian,
Evacuee Properties, District Deoria & ors., AIR
1961 SC 365 (Para 14)

2.
P.
Kasilingam
Vs
P.S.G.
College
of
Technology, AIR 1995 SC 1395 (Para 15)
3. Km. Shehnaj Begum Vs St. of U.P. & ors. AIR
2014 Allahabad 66 (FB) (Para 16, 17)

4. Sunita Bhadauriya Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
(2006) 1 UPLBEC 754 (DB) (Para 22)

Precedent distinguished:

1. Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs. St. of U.P. & anr. ,
2016 (1) ADJ 21 (Para 4, 7, 20, 21)

2. Manjul Srivastava Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ-A
No. 10928 of 2020 (Para 4, 7, 20)

Precedent cited:

1. Neha Srivastava Vs St. of U.P., Special Appeal
Defective No. 863 of 2015 (Para 4)

Books Referred:

1. Legal Glossary, 4th Edition 1988, published
by the Central Government, Department of Law
and Justice (Para 12)

2. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary Fifth Edition by
John S. James (Para 13)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

1. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Verma, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj
Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for opposite Party No. 1 to 5.

2. This writ petition has been filed for
the following reliefs:

i) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of ''Mandamus' commanding the
opposite party No.4 to consider and take
appropriate decision for compassionate
appointment of petitioner under Dying in
Harness due to the death of father of
petitioner,
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
U.P.
Recruitment
of
Dependents
of
Government
Servants
(Dying in Harness) Rules 1974 after taking
into consideration the law laid down by this
6 All. Smt. Sandhya Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
551
Hon'ble Court in the case of Smt. Vimla
Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and another
reported in 2016 (1) ADJ 21.

ii) Issue any other order or direction,
which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case in
favour of the petitioner in the interest of
justice.

iii) Award the cost of the writ petition
in the favour of the petitioner."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner's father, Sri
Indrapal Yadav, who was working on the
regular post of Senior Assistant at Kishan
Higher
Secondary
School,
Ismailpur,
Barabanki died on 25.07.2020 during his
service period. The petitioner, who is the
married daughter of Late Indrapal Yadav
applied
for
her
appointment
on
compassionate ground. The petitioner's
mother, Smt Kanti Devi (widow of Late
Indrapal Yadav) had also given her no
objection in favour of the petitioner. The
Principal of Kishan Higher Secondary
School, Ismailpur, Barabanki forwarded the
petitioner's application after completing all
the
formalities,
for
the
petitioner's
compassionate appointment to the post of
Class-IV, to the District Inspector of
Schools, Barabanki on 18.01.2020. The
District Inspector of Schools, vide a letter
dated 22.03.2021 (Annexure 3 to the writ
petition) wrote to the Principal, Kishan
Higher
Secondary
School,
Ismailpur,
Barabanki that the married daughter cannot
be given appointment on compassionate
ground, as there was no such Government
Order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner being the
married daughter of Late Indrapal Yadav, is
entitled for consideration for appointment
on compassionate ground. In support of his
contention, he has placed reliance on the
judgments of this court in the cases of Smt.
Vimla Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and
another reported in 2016 (1) ADJ 21;
Neha Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. passed
in Special Appeal Defective No. 863 of
2015 as also in Manjul Srivastava Vs.
State of U.P. and others passed in Writ-A
No. 10928 of 2020.

5. Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits
that the petitioner's case would not be
governed by the U.P. Recruitment of
Dependents
of
Government
Servants
(Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 (in short,
''Rules, 1974'), but by the U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 (''in short, ''Act,
1921')under
which
specific
provision,
Regulations 103 and 107 in Chapter III, has
been made with respect to appointment on
compassionate
ground,
under
which
married daughter is not covered for
compassionate appointment.

6. I have considered the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material on record.

7. In the case of Smt. Vimla
Srivastava (supra), the Division Bench of
this court held that the exclusion of married
daughters from the ambit of the expression
"family" in Rule 2 (c) of the Rules, 1974 is
illegal and un-constitutional being violative
of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of
India. The word "married daughter" in Rule
2 (c) (iii) of the Rules,1974 was struck
down, holding that the married daughter
cannot be excluded from consideration only
on the ground of her marital status. In the
case of Manjul Srivastava (supra) also it
was held that a daughter, irrespective to her
married status is to be regarded as the
member of the Government Servant family
552 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in the same manner as a son, whether
married or un-married, under Rule 2 (c)
(iii) of the Rules, 1974.

8. The aforesaid judgments relate to the
definition of ''family' under Rule 2 (c) of the
Rules, 1974, which applies to the Dependents
of the Government Servant Dying-inHarness.

9. The petitioner's father was a Senior
Assistant in Kishan Higher Secondary
School,
Ismailpur,
Barabanki.
Learned
counsel for the petitioner, on a querry made
to him, stated that the Kishan Higher
Secondary
School,
is
a
recognized
Intermediate College and is receiving grantin-aid from the State Government, to which
the provisions of the Intermediate Education
Act applies.

10. It is, therefore, appropriate to refer
Regulations 103, 104, 105, 106 and 107 in
Chapter III, of the Regulations under Section
16-G of the Intermediate Education Act,
1921, which read as under:-

"103. bl fofu;ekoyh esa nh xbZ fdlh ckr
ds gksrs gq, Hkh tgkWa fdlh ekU;rk izkIr] lgk;rk
izkIr laLFkk dk v/;kid ;k f'k{k.ksRrj deZpkjh oxZ
ds fdlh deZpkjh dh] tks fofgr izfdz;k ds vuqlkj
fu;qDr fd;k x;k gks] lsok dky esa e`R;q gks tk;s]
rks mlds dqVqEc ds ,d lnL; dks] tks 18 o"kZ ls
de vk;q dk u gks] izf'kf{kr Lukrd dh Js.kh esa
v/;kid ds in :i es ;k fdlh f'k{k.ksRrj in ij]
;fn og in ds fy;s fofgr visf{kr ''kSf{kd
izf'k{k.k vgZrk;s] ;fn dksbZ gksa] j[krk gks vkSj
fu;qfDr ds fy;s vU;Fkk mi;qDr gks] fu;qDr fd;k
tk ldrk gS%

Li"Vhdj.k& bl fofu;e ds iz;kstukFkZ
^dqVqEc dk lnL;^ dk rkRi;Z e`r deZpkjh dh
fo/kok@fo/kqj] iq= vfookfgr ;k fo/kok iq=h ls
gksxkA

fVIi.kh& ;g fofu;e vkSj fofu;e 104 ls 107
rd mu e`r deZpkfj;ksa ds laca/k esa ykxw gksaxs ftudh
e`R;q 1 tuojh] 1981 dks ;k mlds i'pkr gqbZ gksA

104- fdlh ekU;rk izkIr] lgk;rk izkIr
laLFkk dk izcU/krU= e`R;q gksus ds fnukad ls lkr
fnu ds Hkhrj fujh{kd dks e`r deZpkjh ds dqVqEc ds
lnL;ksa dh ,d fjiksVZ izLrqr djsxk ftlesa e`r
deZpkjh dk uke] /k`r in] osrueku] fu;qfDr dk
fnukad] e`R;q dk fnukad] fu;kstd laLFkk dk uke
vksj mlds dqVqEc ds lnL;ksa ds uke] mudh
''kSf{kd izf'k{k.k vgZrk,a ;fn dksbZ gksa] vkSj vk;q
dk fooj.k Hkh fn;k tk,xkA fujh{kd vius }kjk
j[ks tkus okys jftLVj esa e`rd dh fof'kf"V;kWa ntZ
djsxkA

105- fofu;e 103 esa fufnZ"V e`r deZpkjh ds
dqVqEc dk dksbZ lnL; lEcfU/kr fujh{kd dks
;FkkfLFkfr] izf'kf{kr Lukrd Js.kh esa v/;kid ;k
f'k{k.ksRrj loxZ ds fdlh in ij fu;qfDr ds fy,
vkosnu djsxkA vkosnu i= ij lfefr }kjk fopkj
fd;k tk;sxk vkSj ;fn lfefr mldh fu;qfDr dh
laLrqfr djs] rks fujh{kd ekU;rk izkIr] lgk;rk
izkIr ml laLFkk ds] ftlesa vkosnd dks fu;qDr
fd;k tkuk gS] izcU/krU= dks vkosnu&i= fofu;e
106 vkSj 107 ds vuqlkj fu;qfDr vkns'k djus ds
fy, HkstsxkA

lfefr esa fuEufyf[kr gksaxs&

1- fujh{kd v/;{k

2- ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd ds dk;kZy; esa
ys[kkf/kdkjh lnL;

3- ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh lnL;

106- e`r deZpkjh ds dqVqEc ds lnL; dh
fu;qfDr mldh ''kSf{kd vgZrkvksa ds vuqlkj
izf'kf{kr Lukrd Js.kh esa ;k fdlh f'k{ks.kRrj in
ij ;FkklEHko mlh laLFkk esa dh tk;sxh tgkWa e`r
deZpkjh viuh e`R;q ds le; lsokjr FkkA ;fn ,slh
laLFkk esa izf'kf{kr Lukrd Js.kh esa fdlh v/;kid
;k f'k{k.ksRrj laoxZ esa dksbZ in fjDr u gks rks
mldh fu;qfDr ftys dh fdlh vU; ekU;rk izkIr]
lgk;rk izkIr laLFkk esa tgkWa ,slh fjfDr gks dh
tk;sxh&

izfrcU/k ;g gS fd ;fn ftys dh fdlh ekU;rk
izkIr] lgk;rk izkIr laLFkk esa dksbZ fjfDr rRle;
fo|eku u gks rks ml laLFkk esa tgkWa e`rd viuh e`R;q
ds le; lsokjr Fkk] fu;qfDr izf'kf{kr Lukrd Js.kh ds
v/;kid ds ;k prqFkZ Js.kh ds f'k{ks.kRrj in ds izfr
fdlh vf/kla[; in ds izfr rqjUr dh tk,xhA ,sls
vf/kla[; in dks bl iz;kstu ds fy, l`ftr fd;k
x;k le>k tk,xk vkSj mls rc rd tkjh j[kk
tk;sxk tcrd dksbZ fjfDr ml laLFkk esa ;k ftys dh
fdlh vU; ekU;rk izkIr] lgk;rk izkIr laLFkk esa
miyC/k u gks tk;s vkSj ,slh fLFkfr esa vf/kla[; in
6 All. Smt. Sandhya Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
553
ds in/kkjh }kjk dh x;h lsok dh x.kuk osru fu/kkZj.k
vkSj lsok fuo`fRr ykHkksa ds fy, dh tk;sxhA rkRi;Z

107- ml ekU;rk izkIr] lgk;rk izkIr laLFkk ds
izcU/krU= }kjk] ftldks fofu;e 105 ds v/khu
fujh{kd }kjk vkosnu&i= Hkstk x;k ;k vkosnu&i=
dks izkfIr ds fnukad ls ,d ekg dh vof/k ds Hkhrj
fujh{kd dks lwpuk nsrs gq, fu;qDr i= tkjh fd;k
tk;sxkA"

11. It is evident from Regulation 103
as quoted above that it provides for
appointment on compassionate ground to
one ''member of the family' of the deceased
teacher and non-teaching staff, who fulfills
the requisite qualifications. "Member of the
family" as per the "explanation" given in
Regulation 103, means widow/widower,
son, unmarried or divorced daughter of the
deceased employee. On a plain reading of
Regulation 103, ''married daughter' is not
covered under the expression "member of
the family".

12. The expression "member of
family" in Regulation 103, uses the word
^rkRi;Z^. In legal Glossary, 4th Edition 1988,
published by the Central Government,
Department of Law and Justice, fo/kk;h foHkkx]
jktHkk"kk [kaM ] the English meaning of ^rkRi;Z^
is, i) purport; ii) tenor. The meaning of
"purport", in the same Legal Glossary, is
"to mean; to have its purport; to profess or
claim by its tenor", and the meaning of
"Tenor" in the same Legal Glossary is
"apparent".

13. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary
Fifth Edition by John S. James, one of
the meanings of the word "tenor" is to
recite verbatim i.e. exactly as it is spoken
or written. It is reproduced as under:-

"1) .......

2) In libel the law attaches a technical
meaning to the word "tenor", as signifying
either an exact copy, or a statement of the
libel verbatim. " Tenor' has so strict and
technical a meaning as to make it
necessary to recite verbatim" (R. v. May 1
Doug.194); but the expression "MANNER
AND FORM" means nothing more than a
substantial recital (Wright v. Clements 3 B.
& Ald. 503). "There is a distinction to be
observed between the legal terms ''tenor'
and ''form,' and the setting out of an
instrument ''according to the tenor' or
''according to the form.' ''Tenor' has a
stricter sense than ''form.' In the former
case, an instrument must be set out in hoec
verba, but where a form is to be pursued
the same strictness is not required" (per
Crampton J., Mount-Cashell v. O'Neill 2 Ir.
Com. Law Rep.454). In the same strict way
"tenor"
is
construed
in
America
(Commonwealth v. Stevens 1 Mass. 203;
Commonwealth vs. Wright 1 Cush. 46;
People v. Warner 5 Wend. 273).

14. The word ''purport' has one of its
meaning as apparent, what appears on the
face of it. In Azimunnissa and others Vs.
The
Deputy
Custodian,
Evacuee
Properties, District Deoria and others
AIR 1961 S.C. 365, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that the word ''purport' has
many shades of meaning. It means
fictitious, what appears on the face of the
instrument; the apparent and not the legal
import and therefore any act which
purports to be done in exercise of a power
is to be deemed to be done within that
power notwithstanding that the power is
not exercisable. Purporting is therefore
indicative of what appears on the face of it
or is apparent even though in law it may
not be so."

15. In view of the aforesaid meaning,
the English meaning of ^rkRi;Z^ is "to mean",
and the use of this expression in "member
of family" in Regulation 103 makes only
554 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
those persons member of family, which are
"apparent". Those who are included are
apparent and those who are not included are
not apparent and cannot be the member of
family in Regulation 103. Apparently,
"married daughter" is not included. In P.
Kasilingam
Vs.
P.S.G.
College
of
Technology, AIR 1995 SC 1395 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that a particular
expression is often defined by the Legislature
by using the word 'means' or the word
'includes'. Sometimes the words 'means and
includes' are used. The use of the word
''means' indicates that the "definition is a
hard- and-fast definition. and no other
meaning can be assigned to the expression
that is put down in definition."

16. It is also appropriate to refer the Full
Bench judgment of this Court in Km.
Shehnaj Begum Vs. State of U.P. and
others AIR 2014 Allahabad 66 (FB). The
question referred to the Larger Bench was
"Whether the definition of 'family' in rule 2
(c) of U. P. Recruitment of Dependants of
Government
Servant
Dying-in-Harness
Rules, 1974 is inclusive or exhaustive?"

The Hon'ble Full Bench answered that
the definition of ''family' in rule 2 (c) of U. P.
Recruitment of Dependants of Government
Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 is
exhaustive, in spite of the fact that the word
''includes' was used in the rule. The Hon'ble
Full Bench held that ''includes', was used in
the sense of ''means' as by specifying the
relatives in reference to family the intention
appeared to be to make the definition
exhaustive.

17. Paragraph Nos. 39 to 47 and 51 of
Km. Shehnaj Begum (supra) read as under:

"39. In its ordinary and primary sense
the word ''family' signifies the collective
body of persons living in one house or
under one head or manager or one
domestic government. What constitutes a
family in a given set of circumstances or in
a particular society depends upon the
habits and ideas of persons constituting
that society and the religious and socioreligious customs of the community to
which such persons may belong. Word
''family' has a different meaning under
Hindu Law and Muslim Law. Family can
be immediate family, expanded family and
also blended family. Joint Hindu Family is
a concept well recognized under Hindu
Law whereas there is no such concept
under Muslim Law. Word ''family' has been
assigned different meaning under the
different enactments depending upon the
context. It has been defined differently
under various Rent Acts, Land Ceiling Act
and Land Reforms Act. The word has been
subject matter of judicial interpretation in
various pronouncements.

40. In Devki Nandan v. Murlidar ,
AIR 1957 SC 133 , it has been held that
'family ' in its popular sense means '
children '.

41. In Ram Chauvan v. Girija
Nandini , AIR 1966 SC 323, it has been
held that word 'family' does not mean only
a group of persons who are recognized in
law as having a right of succession or
having a claim to a share in the property in
dispute.

42. Patna High Court in the case of
Aliv Kassan v. Torrab Hussain, AIR 1958
Pat 232 where the property was originally
purchased by two sisters has held the
expression 'family' includes a sister's son.

43. Under the Mussalman Waqf
Validating Act, 1930, the term ''family' has
been held to include both agnates and
cognates and relations by blood or
marriage. The nephews of the settler of
6 All. Smt. Sandhya Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
555
Waqf were held to be the members of the
family. In Ismail Haji v. Umar Abdullah ,
AIR 1942 Bombay 775, Md . Azam Khan
v. Hamid Shah, AIR 1947 Allahabad 137,
Rahmanul Hasan v. Zahurul Hasan , AIR
1947 All 281, the son of a half - brother or
of a half- sister have been held to be
included in the term ' family '.

44. According to Law Lexicon 'family'
may include even domestic servants and
some times persons who are merely
boarders.

45. The term 'family' being capable of
such wide and varying meaning and having
been
subject
matter
of
such
wide
interpretation, the use of this word in 1974
Rules cannot be left to be assigned a
meaning in its general terms or as it is
understood in popular sense by different
sections of society nor it can be left to be
assigned a meaning as it is understood in
different religions or according to socioreligious custom prevalent in different
communities for that would lead to a
chaotic situation . Thus, the word has to be
interpreted in reference to the context it has
been used keeping in view the object and
purpose of the Rules balancing with the
mandate of equality enshrined under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

46. It is well settled principle of
interpretation of Statutes that a statutory
provision should not be construed in a
manner which would lead to manifest
absurdity, futility, or anomaly or chaos .
Reference may be made to the decision of
Apex Court in H.S. Vankani v. State of
Gujarat , ( 2010 ) 4 SCC 301 : AIR 2010
SC 1714"

47. By specifying the relations in
reference to family the intention appears to
be to make the definition exhaustive. If it
had been the intention to bring within the
ambit of word ''family ' all the relations, it
was unnecessary to specify some of them. It
seems to us that word " includes " has been
used in the rules in the sense of " means "
and according to us , this is the only
construction, the word ''include' can bear
in the context of the rules. If the intention of
the legislature was not to make the list
exhaustive, there was hardly any necessity
to have described dependent relations of
being included in the definition of family. It
also does not appear to us that relations
specified in the Rules have been described
ex. abundanti cautela i. e. in abundant
caution for the simple reason that in case
the definition of word family was left to
ones imagination without specifying the
relations to which it intended to extent the
benefit would have resulted into totally
chaotic situation leaving it open to all and
sundry
who
could
even
remotely
demonstrate to be a member of the family,
in view of the varied definition and
interpretation of the word, to claim the
benefit destroying the very purpose and
object of the rules much less advancing the
same.

51. Thus, our answer to the reference
is that definition of the family in Rule 2 (c)
of U. P. Recruitment of Dependants of
Government
Servant
Dying-in-Harness
Rules, 1974 is exhaustive."

18. ''Member of family' in Regulation
103 is therefore exhaustive of the list of
members mentioned therein, as, had it been
the intention of the Regulation making
authority, to bring within the ''member of
family' the ''married daughter', it would
have been included in the like manner other
relations have been specifically included.
The relations which have not been included
can not be read in to regulation 103, to
expand the meaning of ''member of the
family' as by specifying the relations in
reference to family, the definition has been
made exhaustive.
556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

19. Regulation 103 of the Regulations
as it stands, ''married daughter' is not entitled
for appointment on compassionate ground.

20. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the "member of family" in
Regulation
103,
includes
"unmarried
daughter and widowed daughter", but it does
not include "married daughter" in the like
manner as the expression ''family' was
defined under Rule 2 (c) (iii) of the Rules,
1974, and consequently, the benefit of the
judgment of this Court in the cases of Smt.
Vimla
Srivastava
(supra)
and
Manjul
Srivastava (supra) deserves to be extended to
the petitioner on the same reasoning and the
ratio as laid down in those judgments by
holding that the "married daughter" is also
included
in
Regulation
103
of
the
Regulations in the definition of "member of
family".

21. The submission of Shri Arun Kumar
Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner that
applying the ratio of the Division Bench
judgment in Smt. Vimla Srivastava (supra),
''married daughter' may also be considered to
be included in ''member of family' in
Regulation 103 deserves no consideration in
this writ petition, for the reason, that in Smt.
Vimla
Srivastava
(supra)
there
was
challenge to the vires of Rule 2(c) of the
Rules, 1974. In the present case there is no
challenge to the vires of Regulation 103 of
the Regulations as regards definition of
''member of family'.

22. Further, this court finds that in
Sunita Bhadauriya Vs. State of U.P. &
others, (2006) 1 UPLBEC 754 (DB) Rule2(c) of the Rules, 1974, was challenged on
the ground of being ultra vires Articles 14
and 39(a) of the Constitution of India, as the
definition of ''family' did not include ''married
daughter'. Such challenge was negatived by
the Division Bench of this Court. The
judgment in Sunita Bhadauriya (supra) was
not noticed by the coordinate Bench in Smt.
Vimla Srivastava(supra), which took a
contrary view.

23. Learned counsel for the petitioner
prays that the petitioner may be granted
liberty to file fresh writ petition with better
particulars
making
appropriate
prayers
including the prayer to challenge the vires of
Regulation 103 of the Regulations.

24. Liberty as prayed is granted, if so
advised.

25. With the aforesaid, but in view of
the liberty granted, this writ petition is
disposed of finally.
----------
(2021)06ILR A556
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.05.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ -A No. 5985 of 2015

Ranveer Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prahlad Kumar Khare, Sri P. Khare, Sri Ram
Kirit Singh, Sri Ram Kirit Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, Sri D. Vaish,
S.C.

A. Service Law - Dismissal - Disciplinary
Inquiry - Procedural flaw in Departmental
Inquiry
-
In
a
departmental
proceedings/domestic inquiry involving a
major penalty, mere documents produced
before
the
Inquiry
Officer
by
the