Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain, J.- Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Singh learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.B. Pandey and the learned Standing Coun­sel. 2. At the very outset the petitioner has stated that due to inadvertence he has failed to array 'U.P. Hindi Sansthan' as a party in the array of opposite parties. He prays that he may be permitted to add 'U.P. Hindi Sansthan' in proper format as opposite party No. 3 during the course of the day. 3. This is an innocuous prayer. It is not opposed, hence allowed. 4. U.P. Hindi Sansthan' may be arrayed as opposite party No. 3. 5. This is a case of appointment under Dying in Harness Rules. Mother of the peti­tioner Smt. Shobhawati Singh was a regular employee of the respondent department and she was working on the post of 'Peon' since 26.7.1985 and she died in harness on 22.9.2007, leaving behind her divorcee daughter i.e. the petitioner and the children. The petitioner applied for appointment un­der Dying in Harness Rules on 15.10.2007. She submitted the requisite papers and vide Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition her case was recommended to the State Government by the Director on 2.7.2008. The petitioner says that the Director was himself the appoint­ing authority and there was no requirement for him to have sent the matter before the State Government. 6. The State Government rejected the case of the petitioner vide its order dated 9.8.2010 on the ground that the divorcee daughter is not included in the definition of 'family'. Dying in Harness Rules has been interpreted by this court on number of occasions. He has placed reliance on a case decided by the Di­vision Bench of this court reported in 1999 (32) FLR 523 (State of U.P. and others v. Rajendra Kumar and others). In paragraph 11 of the judgment their Lordships have held as follows: "11. It may also be mentioned that the modern method of interpretation, as pointed out by Lord Denning in his Book : 'The Dis­cipline of Law', is purposive and not literal. The literal method of interpretation as pointed out by Lord Denning is out of vogue every­where in the world Supreme Court in several decisions e.g. in Hindustan Lever Ltd. V. Ashok Vishnu Kate and others : ( AIR 1996 SC 285 ). The literal method of interpretation as pointed out by Lord Denning is out of vogue every­where in the world Supreme Court in several decisions e.g. in Hindustan Lever Ltd. V. Ashok Vishnu Kate and others : ( AIR 1996 SC 285 ). In Administrator Municipal Corpo­ration v. Dattatray : ( AIR 1992 SC 1846 ) the Supreme Court observed. "The mechanical approach to construction is altogether out of step with the modern positive approach. The modern positive approach is to have a pur­poseful construction that is to effectuate the object and purpose of the Act". 7. This view found favour in another judg­ment passed in Writ Petition No. 26684/2001 decided on 23.7.2001 : (2001 All LJ 2156) by Hon'ble Justice A.K. Yog in the case of Kusum Devi v. State of U.P. & others. In para­graph 10 of this judgment His Lordship has held: "A divorced daughter, if dependent upon her father, cannot be excluded and has to be included within the meaning of the word 'family' since such a 'divorced daughter', if dependent upon her father, has to be treated at par with an unmanned daughter or widowed daughter as all of them continue to to be the liability of their father as member of the fam­ily of their 'father'." 8. One more case law which has been cited is 2006 (2) UPLBEC 1972 : (2006 (6) ALJ (DOC) 226 (All)) in the matter of Sanyogita Rai v. State of U.P. & others. 9. It appears that the State Government rejected the case of the petitioner on the lit­eral interpretation of the 1974 Rules. It will be proper that the matter may be sent back to the State Government for consideration of the case of the petitioner in the light of the judg­ments mentioned above. 10. At this juncture Sri S.B. Pandey ap­pearing for the U.P. Hindi Sansthan made a prayer that he may be granted time to file counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties No. 2 and 3. The prayer has been op­posed by the counsel for the petitioner on the ground that since the matter has already been favourably recommended by the opposite party No. 2. hence grant of time to Sri S.B. Pandey for filing counter affidavit will serve no purpose. It will only delay the proceed­ings and might derail the case on the path of pendency. hence grant of time to Sri S.B. Pandey for filing counter affidavit will serve no purpose. It will only delay the proceed­ings and might derail the case on the path of pendency. He further urged that since the or­der of the State Government is under chal­lenge it is the learned Standing Counsel who has to defend the order and not the counsel for the U.P. Hindi Sansthan. 11. Sri S.B. Pandey, however, insisted that he may be granted time to file counter affida­vit and orders may not be passed today. 12. Dying in Harness Rules were framed to meet out the exigencies of death of an employee. Death is an eventuality which has to visit everybody who is born on this earth. It was to meet the hardship which befalls the family members when the bread-earner of the family is suddenly snatched away by the cruel hands of death. It was to take the family out of the rigours of poverty and sudden tragedy which quietly slips into the home and snatches away the livelihood. It was with this view that Dying in Harness Rules were framed. Time is always of essence in such matters. If an appointment is delayed under Dying in Har­ness Rules it will amount to negation of pur­pose for which the rules were framed. It is a piece of benevolent legislation. The follow­ers of rule of law will be well advised to act with haste and spirit of help. It should not be taken lightly by the authorities. 13. The court has to be very cautious while dealing with such matters and any unneces­sary delay may cause irreparable loss and in­jury to the family and injustice to the cause of legislation itself. 14. In the circumstances the court is un­able to accept the prayer of Sri S.B. Pandey. Simply, granting time for counter affidavit with no practical purpose is not in the best interest of any party. 15. Accordingly, the order dated 9.8.2010 passed by the State Government and the con­sequential order dated 23.10.2010 passed by opposite party No. 2 respectively are hereby set aside. 16. The State Government is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid judgments and definition of the 'family clause' in the 1974 Rules, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible under the rules. 17. 16. The State Government is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid judgments and definition of the 'family clause' in the 1974 Rules, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible under the rules. 17. The opposite parties shall be at liberty to apply their mind independently on the other aspects of the matter and take a decision on the basis of record. They shall be at liberty to verify other facts and the dates mentioned therein. 18. With the above observation the writ petition is finally disposed of. Petition allowed.