HERALD HAMILTON Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of certiorari and/or mandamus or any order or direction to quash the orders of the State Government dated 9th November, 1984 (Annx. 1), 21st November, 1986 (Annx. 8) and 4th December, 1986 (Annx. 9) and to direct the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of a clerk in the service of the State of Government.

(2.) THE brief facts, as pleaded in the writ petition, are that the petitioner's elder sister late Miss Litishea Hamilton was employed as an Auxilliary Nurse Midwife at Bhinay, District Ajmer. While she was in the employment, on the mint of 2nd and 3rd September. 1978. she (late Miss Litishea Hamilton) was raped and burnt in her staff quarter in the hospital compound at Bhinay. She ultimately died on 5th September, 1978. In the beginning of the year 1980, the petitioner had applied to the State Government and the Director of Medical & Health Services Rajasthan, Jaipur for granting employment to him in place of his deceased sister under the provisions of the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying While in Service, Rules, 1975 (for short, the Rule of 1975) which regulate the recruitment of the dependants of Government servants dying while in service. THE Rules apply to recruitment of the dependants of the deceased government servant in public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State except services and posts which are within the purview of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. THE State Government by order dated 9th November, 1984, refused to give employment to the petitioner on the ground that his late sister was unmarried and, as such had no dependants and further that the petitioner was not dependant upon her being her brother. THEreafter the petitioner and his father made several representations for giving the petitioner employment, in the Amrit Kaur Hospital, Beawar as a clerk. Ultimately, the State Government by orders dated 21st November, 1986 and 4th December, 1986, informed the petitioner that the rules do not permit to give any employment to him. THE main ground on which the State Government refused to give employment under the said Rules was that late Miss Litishea Hamilton was unmarried and, therefore, no body could be considered to be her dependant. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) THE entire controversy, thus, hinges on the true and correct interpretation to be given to the word 'family' as defined in the Rules. THE definition states that 'family' means the family of the deceased Government servant and shall include wife or husband, sons and unmarried or widow daughters who are depen dants on the deceased government servant. Thus, for the first part i. e. the 'family' means "the family of the deceased government servant" and word "family" has no wider meaning than the ordinary accepted connotation of the word, which means members of a household. THE latter part points out that the word 'includes,' denotes extension and is used to denote the enlarged meaning of the word.