RAJESH BALIA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner seeks mandamus for appointment to be given to him under Rajasthan [Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants dying while in service) Rules, 1975 [for short, the Rules of 1 975'). The petitioner states that his brother Lalit Singh on whom he was fully dependent, was serving as Government servant since 1 981. Said Lalit Singh expired on 29.7.1 989 while he was serving as class IV employee in the Office of Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Department, Circle Salumber. At the time of death of said Lalit Singh, he was 27 years of age and was un -married. In the absence of any other member of the family, his widow or children, the petitioner contends that as a brother, he was entitled to be offered a job under the aforesaid Rules. By letter dated 21.4.1990, it was communicated to the petitioner that he does not come within the definition of 'family' of deceased Government Servant, given under the Rules, as such, his proposal for appointment cannot be accorded to. The petitioner challanges this refusal (Annexures 7 and 9). The petitioner relies a Division Bench decision of this Court in Herald Hamilton v. The State of Rajasthan reported in 1988(1) R.L.W. 142. The relevant rule of the Rules of 1 975 defines the word 'family' as follows: 2(7) 'family' means the family of the deceased Government Servant and shall Included wife or husband, sons and unmarried or widow daughters, who were dependent on the deceased Government servant,
(2.) IN Ramcharan Das's case, the Apex Court had observed in this content as under: The word 'family' in the context is not to be understood in a narrow sence of being a group of persons who are recognised in law as having a right of succession or having a 'claim to a share in the property in dispute. This Court while interpreting the meaning of word 'family', under the Rules in question, observed in Herald Hamilton's case (supra) as under:. the context in which the word 'family' appears in the definition and the intention of the Rule makers, we are of the opinion that it is a word of loose and flexible description and not a technical term. It is also obvious that its embit has to be determined having regard to the habits, ideas and socio -economic milled of the parties. It is also clear that it is not to be understood in a narrow sense of being a group of persons who are recognised in law having a right of succession or having a claim or right to a share on the property or meaning only a member of Hindu joint family. We, therefore, hold that a brother living with the unmarried sister for the purpose of the Rules of 1975 in one facts and circumstances of the case, would constitute a member of the family of the unmarried sister.
(3.) THE decision was followed in Madhusudan Chauhan's case (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3665 of 1990) decided on 20.11.1990.;