The court said, “Courts cannot expand the scope of a statutory definition through the process of interpretation. When the rule maker has specified persons as family members of an employee in so many words, we cannot add one or remove one from the definition of family.

Any argument to the contrary, if accepted, would amount to rewriting the rule, and hence, cannot be accepted.” The appellant had challenged the March 30, 2023 order of the single judge bench which had rejected his petition seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. His brother, who worked with state power transmission company BESCOM, had died at the workplace. Her lawyer argued that she was dependent on her brother and hence a member of his family and as such was eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. BESCOM, however, had opposed the woman’s claim.