JUDGMENT
S. Rafat Alam and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.
1. This intra Court appeal, under the Rules of the Court, is preferred against the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated 9.2.2007 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7273 of 2007.
2. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants, Mr. Akhileshwar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent No. 2.
3. It appears that respondent No. 1, Smt. Lalti Devi, filed the aforesaid writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the appellants to provide her compassionate appointment under the UP. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). It further appears that the request of the petitioner-respondent No. 1 was not (sic) to by the appellant, on the ground, that the daughter in law does not come within the meaning of ‘family’ as mentioned in the Government Order relating to compassionate appointment.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant tried to argue that the definition of ‘family’ contained in Rule 2(c) is exhaustive though we do not find any substance therein. From a bare reading thereof, it is evident that the said definition is inclusive and it is reproduced as under:
2(c) “family” shall include the following relations of the deceased Government servant;
(i) Wife or husband;
(ii) Sons;
(iii) Unmarried and widowed daughters;
5. We are fortified in taking the aforesaid view that Rule 2(c) is inclusive from the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Rajendra Kumar and Ors. reported in 1999 All. Civil Journal, 545. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Single Judge in the case of Manoj Kumar Saxena v. The District Magistrate Bareilly and Ors. reported in 2000(2) E.S.C. 967 (All) and in Smt. Urmila Devi v. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. reported in 2004 (2) E.S.C. (All) 180 and we are in respectful agreement with the view expressed therein. Learned Counsel for the appellant could not show that the aforesaid rules are not applicable to Zila Panchayat and on the contrary the G.O. No. U.O.-113D/33-2-32-B(1)/84 dated 5th July,1984 and G.O. No. 58661/33-2-2005 dated 2.12.2005 show that for the purpose of compassionate appointment the decision was taken and 1974 Rules have been made applicable to the employees of Zila Panchayat. However, the aforesaid Rules have made applicable only to such employees, who are not within the purview of the Commission.
6. In this view of the matter, the daughter in law, who becomes a member of the family of her husband, in our view, 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 provided all other conditions as required in law for such recruitment are fulfilled. We make it clear that the aforesaid right of daughter in law would not be available, if she has remarried or repatriated to her parents place and in such case the position would be different. However, we need not to go into this aspect further in detail since the Hon’ble Single Judge vide judgment under appeal has passed an innocuous order directing the petitioners to consider the claim of respondent No. 1 in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge in Sanyogita Rai v. State of U.P. 2006 (2) UPLBEC 1972. Learned Counsel for the appellants could not point out, on facts, that the aforesaid judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. Thus, we do not find any legal or factual error in the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge.
The appeal, being without merit, is dismissed.