Anurag Chand vs Director of Education (Basic)/Chairman, Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P., and Others

Tarun Agarwala, J.—The Petitioner''s step mother, Smt. Geeta Kushwaha died-in-harness on 28.8.1997. As a step son, the Petitioner applied for his appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. The application of the Petitioner was also accompanied by a succession certificate issued by the Tehsildar. Subsequently, the Respondent issued an appointment letter dated 4.5.1998 appointing the Petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher in Prathmic Vidyalaya Phulwariya, Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi. On the basis of the aforesaid appointment letter, the Petitioner joined the school as an assistant teacher and worked till 3.6.1998, on which date Respondent No. 2, namely, District Basic Education Officer, Varanasi, cancelled the appointment order dated 2.5.1998 by the impugned order on the ground that the Petitioner is not a uterine son of the deceased and was, therefore, not entitled for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

The impugned order dated 3.6.1998 has been assailed in the present writ petition.

Heard Sri. Dinesh Rai, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent.

Under the Rules of 1974, family has been defined as under:

(c) "family" shall include the following relations of the deceased Government servant:

(i) Wife or husband;

(ii) Sons;

(iii) Unmarried and widowed daughters;

From a perusal of the aforesaid rules it is clear that son is included in the definition of word "family".

The question that arises for consideration is, whether a uterine son could only be included in the definition clause of "family" or whether a step son could also be included.

In my view, the word "family" has to be liberally construed. In Smt. Kushum Devi Vs. State of U.P. and another, it was held that a divorced daughter of the deceased would be covered under the definition of family and would be entitled to an appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. In Smt. Urmila Devi Vs. U.P. Power Corporation and Others, it was held that a daughter-in-law of the deceased son would be also covered under the definition of family and would be entitled for appointment.

In my view, a step son would be covered under the definition of word ''family'' and would be entitled for appointment.

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 3.6.1998, passed by the Respondent No. 2 (filed as Annexure-7) is quashed. The Petitioner would be entitled to continue in service as a legal heir of the deceased.