In view of ratio as laid down in the above judgments, it is clear that the main object behind the Rules of 1996 is to consider the dependency of the deceased employee, to take care of the dependents of the deceased employee and to save them from financial crisis. Admittedly, in the present case, the only surviving members of the family of the deceased are his father, mother and unmarried brother. It is also clear on record that none of them is employed and were totally dependent on the deceased at the time of his death. Moreover, the mother of the deceased is suffering from the cancer and the present petitioner, that is, the younger brother, was an unemployed student. Therefore, the present petitioner definitely fall in the category of “dependent” may be not in strict sense but definitely in broader perspective and by virtue of the precedents on the issue. Further, keeping in consideration the fact that the State Government itself has now included ‘unmarried brother’ in the definition of the ‘dependents’ of an unmarried deceased Government servant, the fact that the application was preferred by the petitioner soon after the death of the employee in the year 2016 and the fact that soon after the rejection of the application, the present writ petition was preferred before this Court and remained pending till date, the matter definitely requires reconsideration by the respondent-authorities.
