S. K. Dhaon, J. - (1.) THE averments are these. One late Miss A. S. Elias was a teacher in Jagat Taran Girls Inter College, Allahabad (hereinaftet referred to as the College). She was to retire from service on 28th July, 1983. Since she was retiring in the mid-session, under a Government order dated 15th May, 1978, she was allowed to continue till the end of the academic session, viz., 30th June, 1984. She died on 28th August, 1988. For the purpose of the payment of the gratuity she nominated the petitioner no. 1, who was the daughter of her sister, in the prescribed form. THE nomination paper was duly accepted by the College. Upon the 'death of Miss Elias, the petitioner applied for the payment of the gratuity to her. THE papers were forwarded to the Deputy Director of Education by the College. By a communication dated 8th January, 1987, the Manager of the College informed the petitioner that the Deputy Director of Education by his order dated 15th December, 1986, had declined to make the payment of the gratuity payable to Miss Elias to the petitioner. THE decision of the Deputy Director is being impugned in the present petition.
(2.) THE Deputy Director refused the payment of the gratuity to the petitioner on the ground that the nomination made by Miss Elias in favour of the petitioner was invalid as she did not fall in the category of the members of the family as incorporated in Rule 4 (b) of the U. P. School and College Teachers Gratuity Fund (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). This view of the Deputy Director has been assailed before us. An application had been made by one Mrs. A. H. Hamilttan, who claims herself to be the sister of Miss Elias, for being impleaded as the petitioner no. 2 in this petition. This application had been allowed by us. The submission is that in any view of the matter, Mrs. Hamilttan would be entitled to receive the payment of gratuity. Under Rule 4 (b) of the Rules "family" includes the following relatives wholly dependent upon a teacher :- (i) Wife in the case of male teacher ; (ii) Husband in the case of a female teacher ; (iii) Sons including step and adopted children ; (iv) Unmarried and widowed daughters'; (v) Brothers below the age of 18 years and unmarried and widowed sisters (such step brothers and step sisters) ; (vi) Father ; (vii) Mother ; (viii) Married daughters (including step daughters); and (ix) Children of a pre-deceased son. Rule 6 provides that a teacher covered by the Rules, shall on completion of three years' continuous services make a nomination conferring on one or more members of his family, the right to receive any gratuity that may be admissible under the Rules. The nomination may be made in one of the attached forms as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case. There is a note to the effect that if the teacher has not left any family, no gratuity will be payable under these rules.
(3.) A perusal of the list of the relatives included in " family " will immediately show that neither the petitioner no. 1 nor the petitioner no. 2 are included in the list. Only unmarried and widowed sisters are mentioned therein. If a married sister has been excluded, by necessary implication the daughter of the married sister stands excluded. Admittedly, the petitioner no. 1 is the daughter of the petitioner no. 2 who admittedly a married lady. If the petitioner no. 1, who is the daughter of married sister, is not a relative within the meaning of definition of " family ", the nomination made in her favour by Miss Elias was of no avail as the same could be made only in favour of one or more members of the "family ". The question is 5 whether the definition of " family " as contained in Rule 4 (b) is exhaustive ? The definition, on the face of it, is an inclusive one. Therefore, normally it should be given an extensive meaning. The argument is that if the Rule making authority intended to make the definition restrictive and exhaustive, there was no difficulty in it using the normal expression " Means ". It is now well settled that in certain context the word " include " is capable of another construction and such a construction may become imperative if it is manifest from the context that the expression was merely employed for the purpose of adding to the natural significance of the words or expressions used. In other words, the word " include " may be equivalent to " means and include ". By giving a long list of relatives the Rule making authority intended to make the same exhaustive and there is no scope for enlarging its contents.;