ANJANA SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. K. Narayana, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for opposite party no. 1 and Sri Sandeep Dixit, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2 to 4 and perused the record.

(2.) THE instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the orders dated 03. 11. 2008 and 27. 06. 2008 passed by the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the writ petition by which the petitioner's claim for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the ground on which the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment in the Corporation has been rejected is totally misconceived and unsustainable as it has been held in several decisions of this Hon'ble Court that daughter-in-law is covered within the definition of family members under the provisions of the Rules for the purpose of being given appointment on compassionate ground. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Single Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Sanyogita Rai (Smt.) vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2006) 2 UPLBEC 1972, 2006 (5) ADJ 501 : 2006 (3) ESC 1825. Relevant paragraph-10 of the aforesaid judgement reads hereunder:- "as a result of foregoing discussions, I am of the considered view that word 'family' in the provisions must be construed liberally having due regard to the inclusive definition of the term 'family' as defined in and object sought to be served by the rules. The petitioner in the instant case being the daughter-in- law of the deceased and admittedly, the husband of the petitioner has been murdered and is no more, therefore, in my opinion the petitioner is entitled to be construed as one of the family members of the deceased in view of the inclusive definition of the word 'family' and is thus entitled to be considered for appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. "