JUDGMENT : Heard learned advocate Mr. Nisarg Shah for Mr. Murali S. Devnani, learned advocate for the petitioners and learned advocate Ms. Lilu Bhaya for the respondents. 2. The prayer in this petition is to set aside orders dated 29th May, 2012 and 18th May, 2012 passed by the respondent authorities and further to direct the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for a compassionate appointment. The decision of the competent authority of the respondent Corporation reflected in the aforementioned impugned communication dated 18th May, 2012 stated that proposal for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was regretted as his case was not covered under the Resolution of the Board bearing No.5283/1986. 3. The petitioner's father working as Helper since 1982 at the Training Section of respondent Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Limited, Vanakbori Thermal Power Station, suffered from a serious lung disease which rendered him disabled and incapacitated to work. Medical certificates were submitted before the respondent-employer. Certificate dated 23rd April, 2010 signed by team of medical experts consisting of Chief District Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon, Resident Medical Officer and Physician of General Hospital, Nadiad mentioned that the petitioner's father Shivabhai Manchhi was examined at the Hospital and he was found to be suffering from COPD. It was stated that he was not able to work which involve lifting of heavy objects, climbing stairs and other straneous physical work. The aforesaid certificate was sent by the Civil Surgeon at the instance of and in pursuance to letter dated 21st April, 2010 addressed by the respondent. Another medical certificate dated 04th January, 2012 was issued to the same effect by another medical expert Dr. V.C. Patel, Chief Medical Officer, GSECL Hospital, Wanakbori Thermal Power Station. In yet another medical certificate by the Director of Gujarat Pulmonary & Critical Care Clinic. It was stated that father of the petitioner had severe COPD which was not showing improvement and in view of his critical status, he was not fit to do any straneous work at all. 3.1 The certificates in terms indicated and certified that petitioner's father had catch ailment called Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). It is on the basis of such certificate of the medical experts, Civil Surgeon declared by communication that petitioner's father is suffering from COPD, was rendered permanently unfit and disabled to the duties as Helper. 3.1 The certificates in terms indicated and certified that petitioner's father had catch ailment called Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). It is on the basis of such certificate of the medical experts, Civil Surgeon declared by communication that petitioner's father is suffering from COPD, was rendered permanently unfit and disabled to the duties as Helper. On 26th December, 2011 father of the petitioner had already applied to the that having regard to the said serious lung ailment, since he was not able to come to duty and as the financial condition was stressing, requested to give appointment to his son-the petitioner herein. 4. Affidavit was filed by the respondents, in which it was inter alia contended that the family had sufficient annual income. As far as compassionate appointment to the petitioner was concerned, it was stated that under the policy of the respondent, father of the petitioner had not been suffering from terminal disease mentioned in the policy, therefore, his request was not accepted. 5. The policy of the respondents for giving compassionate appointment has been translated into Resolution No.5283. It provides as under. “The Board approved that as a policy, dependents of employees suffering from terminal diseases like cancer of any part of the body, retinal degenration of both eyes, loss of vision of both eyes due to brain disease, complete heart failure of both ventricular along with congestive cardiac failure and enlarges heard with cardiac asthama, complete paralysis of both upper and lower limbs, and failure of both kidneys, could be considered for complement in the Board subject to availability of vacancy and qualification requirements laid down and subject also to the condition that the family has no other source of income. Such appointments would be considered only if the sick employee is retired on these medical grounds.” 5.1 The aforesaid policy was modified and amended by Circular dated 29th January, 2010. It was represented before the Court that diseases like Hemlplegia and Paraplagia were required to be incorporated in the aforementioned Board's Resolution as they were serious diseases. Hemlplegia is a disease whereunder a person suffers paralysis of one side of the body. The Paraplagia means paralysis of both the lower limbs. Accordingly the said diseases, namely Hemlplegia and Paraplagia were incorporated as the ailments in the policy for the purpose of giving compassionate appointment on condition that percentage of permanent disability must be more than 60%. Hemlplegia is a disease whereunder a person suffers paralysis of one side of the body. The Paraplagia means paralysis of both the lower limbs. Accordingly the said diseases, namely Hemlplegia and Paraplagia were incorporated as the ailments in the policy for the purpose of giving compassionate appointment on condition that percentage of permanent disability must be more than 60%. It is the further case of the petitioner that benefit of the policy was granted to one Smt. Umaben M. Shah who was suffering from serious disease, even though the said disease was not covered as one mentioned in the Resolution No.5283. 5.2 Now, the stand of the respondent Corporation in denying compassionate appointment and refusing to apply Board's Resolution is that in the policy Resolution the terminal diseases are specified and mentioned; they are cancer in any part of the body, retinal degenration of both eyes, loss of vision in both eyes due to brain disease, complete heart failure of both ventricular along with congestive cardiac failure, enlarged heart with cardiac asthama, complete paralysis of both upper as well as the lower limbs, and failure of both kidneys. It is the case that only in respect of employee who suffers from any of the said mentioned diseases, claim for compassionate appointment under the policy could be considered and if the employee is not suffering from any of the diseases mentioned, benefit would not liable to be accorded to him, treating him no covered under the policy. 6. An attentive reading of the Resolution goes to show that the Resolution stats that, “.... dependents of employees suffering from terminal diseases like....”. Therefore the word used in the policy Resolution is “like” which is followed by the specifically mentioned names of the diseases to be treated as diseases for giving compassionate appointment. Lexicographically, “like” means a thing of similarly character. As defined in the Webster, means equal in quantity, quality or degree. It means exactly corresponding and it further means with same force and effect (See Law Lexicon by R. Ramanatha Aiyar, 1997 Edition, Page 1127). 6.1 A like thing, article or circumstance would normally mean something similar; alike in respects to the thing, article or circumstance with which the word “like” is used. The word “like” connotes the thing, article or circumstance not specifically mentioned but has the characteristic closely resembling. 6.1 A like thing, article or circumstance would normally mean something similar; alike in respects to the thing, article or circumstance with which the word “like” is used. The word “like” connotes the thing, article or circumstance not specifically mentioned but has the characteristic closely resembling. It traces the same family roots as the word “includes” for the purpose of interpretation would. 6.2 It is well-settled that when the word “include” is used in a sentence, it is meant to interpret so as to enlarge the meaning of the words or phrases that would follow the word “include”. In the interpretational process, the function of words such as “includes”, “including”, “such as” or “like”, is to extend the meaning. When other words succeed the words “include”, they are normally interpreted on the basis of principle of ejusdem generis. The word “like” rather readily signifies that when it precedes the specific words, a like thing object or matter not specifically referred to would be included within the group. The word “like” expands the group of words. It extends the list to include a similar character. Compared to the function and the signification of the word “include”, the word “like” can be said to be performing a specific function of extension and inclusion in the interpretation. It suggests definitiveness with higher degree for inclusion in the list. When the word “like” precedes the specific named diseases, it necessarily implies that the list cannot be treated as exhaustive. Diseases which are identified by name are only the instance of their kind and the like diseases would also qualify for application of the policy and resultant extension of the benefit on compassionate ground. 6.3 The word “like” also came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Ramchand Vs Randhir Singh, AIR 1995 SC 130 . In that decision, the Supreme Court was concerned with Section 15(1) fourthly in respect of right of pre-emption, and held that an agricultural tenant inducted by usufructuary mortgagee has right to pre-emption over sale made by mortgagor-vendor. The Supreme Court in the context observed that word “like” was obviously used to cover up the case of someone other than the co-sharer; and besides the co-sharer the only tenant now has right of pre-emption; so the word “like” seemingly was conceived to include the case of a tenant. The Supreme Court in the context observed that word “like” was obviously used to cover up the case of someone other than the co-sharer; and besides the co-sharer the only tenant now has right of pre-emption; so the word “like” seemingly was conceived to include the case of a tenant. In other words, because of the word “like”, the tenant holding similar legal characteristic was held to be entitled to preempt the entire sale. 7. There is no gainsaying that the policy has an object of offering compassionate appointment in the cases where the employee has suffered diseases rendering him seriously incapacitated or disabled. The mentioning of the specific diseases is for this purpose only. The context of the policy and the purpose of the policy, therefore also support the interpretation which the word “like” would deservedly receive. Any and all diseases of like characteristic which would tend to match with the nature of the diseases mentioned and identifies with the object of the policy would have to be read and included in the policy for giving benefit. Therefore the disease which falls in the same group of the specifically mentioned diseases in the policy Resolution of the respondent will have to be treated as included on the basis that the policy uses the word “like”. The provision being a benevolent provision, which would admit liberal construction and the word “like” has to be interpreted with such amplitude to confer upon benefit to the beneficiaries so as to include all such diseases which could be grouped together with those mentioned in the Resolution for the purpose of compassionate benefit. 8. The word “like” has to be given a contextual extended meaning to sub-serve the benevolent and beneficial object of the policy. As the word “include” stands almost in synonym to and to perform the same interpretational function as the word “include” would, what is observed by the Supreme Court about the interpretational functionality of the word “include” in Oswal Fats & Oil Limited Vs Commissioner, (2010) 4 SCC 728, would be true for the word “like” for the purpose of present case. “The word “include” is generally used in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of the words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute and when it is so used those words or phrases must be construed as comprehending, not only such things, as they signify according to their natural import, but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include. The word “include” is susceptible of another construction, which may become imperative, if the context of the Act is sufficient to show that it was not merely employed for the purpose of adding to the natural significance of the words or expressions used. It may be equivalent to “mean and include” and in that case it may afford and exhaustive explanation of the meaning which for the purpose of the Act must invariably be attached to those words or expressions.” (Para 36) 9. For the aforesaid discussion, the disease of the father of the petitioner, namely Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease is a disease has to be held to be falling within the purview of the policy Resolution No.5283 of the respondent Corporation. It is ruled that the said diseases has to be included amongst the diseases mentioned therein as like disease. The sufferance of COPD by father of the petitioner permanently incapacitated him to do heavy and straneous work, which is finally certified by the medical experts. The denial on part of the respondent Corporation in giving benefit of compassionate appointment on the ground of non-applicability of policy Resolution cannot be approved. The stand and the decision deserves to be set aside. 10. As a result, the impugned orders dated 29th May, 2012 and 18th May, 2012 and the decision reflected therein is hereby set aside and set at naught. This petition is allowed by directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in light of the present order and pass necessary order within six weeks from the date of receipt of the present order so as to offer the petitioner a suitable appointment. No costs. Direct service is permitted. Petition is Allowed.