Normally, under Rule 2(c)(iv) of the UP Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, an unmarried brother is included in the definition of ‘family’ only if the government servant was unmarried. But the Court said this rule does not apply when the wife of the deceased employee had pre-deceased him.
The court stated that the 1974 Rules are meant to help families and should be
In this case, the petitioner’s elder brother, Mahendra Pratap, who was a government employee, died while in service on October 9, 2015. His wife had died earlier on February 12, 2010. The petitioner claimed he depended on his brother, the sole breadwinner, and applied for compassionate appointment. The authorities rejected his claim because the rules normally exclude unmarried brothers if the deceased was married.
The Court rejected this reasoning. It said the main purpose of the rules is to help the family of the deceased. The rules give priority to the spouse, but if the spouse has already died, this priority no longer applies.
The Court stated: “…the purpose of excluding an unmarried brother does not apply when the wife of the deceased has pre-deceased him, as no purpose is served by such exclusion in this case.”
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court decision in K.H. Nazar v. Matthew K. Jacob (2020), which said that beneficial laws should be interpreted widely to achieve their purpose. Based on this, the Court held that excluding an unmarried brother where the spouse is already deceased is not justified. The Court directed the Assistant Controller, Vidhik Maap Vigyan, Faizabad Range, to reconsider the petitioner’s application. The authorities must make a fresh decision within six weeks, provided the petitioner can prove dependency on his deceased brother.
No comments:
Post a Comment