P. C. JAIN, J. - (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. On 20th March, 1987, when the case came up for admission, this court issued notice to the respondents as to why the writ petition be not admitted and allowed. After service of the notice, the learned Asstt. Government Advocate prayed for three weeks' time to file reply. The time prayed for was allowed by order dated 12th May, 1987 and it was directed that reply may be filed by re-opening of the courts after vacation, and in case no reply is filed, it shall be assumed that the respondents do not wish to file any reply and the case would be heard and disposed of on that basis. On 10th July, 1987, the learned Additional Government Advocate argued the case without filing any reply. Thus, we assume that the incontroverted facts stated in the petition are true and correct. For the purpose of proper appreciation of legal points involved in the case, we reproduce the relevant rule of the said Rules of 1975, as follows:- "2 (f) "family" means the family of the deceased Government servant and shall include wife or husband, sons and unmarried or widow daughters, who were dependant on the deceased Government servant. " "3. Application of the rules:- These Rules shall apply to recruitment of the dependants of the deceased Government servants to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of State, except services and posts which are within the purview of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. " "5. Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased:- In cases of Government servants, who die while in service on or after the commencement of these rules, one member of his family who is not already employed under the Central/state Government or Statutory Board/organisation/corporations owned or controlled by the Central/state Government, shall, on making an application for the purpose, be given a suitable employment in Government service without delay only against an existing vacancy, which is not within the purview of the State Public Service Commission, in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules, provided such member fulfills the educational qualifications prescribed for the post and is also otherwise qualified for Government service. In the event of non-availability of a vacancy or any of the members of the family, being unqualified or minor is not found suitable or eligible for immediate employment, then such cases should be considered immediately on the availability of the post or any of them becomes qualified or eligible for such employment under these Rules. " Relying upon the said rules, it is urged by Shri Kamlakar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner was the brother of late Miss Litishea Hamilton, the deceased Government servant, who was unmarried and was dependant upon her. At the time of her death, the petitioner, was unemployed and undertaking studies and his entire expenses were borne by his sister late Litishea Hamilton. Thus, Shri Kamlakar Sharma submits that in view of the fact that the petitioner was dependant upon late Miss Litishea Hamilton, who was the deceased Government servant, the said Rules are applicable and the petitioner is entitled to claim employment in Government service against any existing vacancy. Shri Sharma also submits that even otherwise the case of the petitioner is fully covered under the proviso, as he was a close relative of the deceased and entitles to the benefit of the Rules. On the other hand, Mrs. Kamla Jain, learned Addl, Government Advocate, drew our attention to the definition of family and has submitted that the petitioner being brother of the deceased government servant, cannot be considered as a member of the family. The learned counsel wants to give restricted meaning to the word 'family' and further submits that the case of the petitioner is not covered under this proviso added to rule 2 (f) by amendment made vide Notification No. F. 3 (6) Karmik/ka-II/75 dated 22nd Feb, 1976 effective from 2nd October, 1975, which is as follows:- "provided that if no such member of the family be eligible forgetting benefit under these Rules, the benefit available under these Rules may be extended to any other close relative of the deceased to be named by the widow or the Guardian of the children of the deceased with the specific approval of the Department of Personnel. " We have given our anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
(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. We, therefore, propose to examine as to what is the ordinary, accepted notion of family. The expression 'family' has been the subject-matter of discussions in several decisions. In Price vs. Gould (1) which has been followed in India in the case of Nanak Chand Vs. Tara Devi (2), the observations of Weight J. are as follows :- ". . . the word family was a popular, loose and flexible expression, and not a technical term. It had been laid down that the primary meaning of the word family was children, but that primary meaning was clearly susceptible of wider interpretation. . . . " The learned Judge while considering the meaning of 'family' in Section 12, sub-section (l) (g) of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions) Act, 1920, observed as follows, by saying that the word - " includes brothers and sisters of the deceased living with her. . . " ;