The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Rule 2(a)(iii) of the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 and its application to the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment as the dependant of a deceased part-time tube-well operator.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 25-1-2000 communicated by letter dated 28-1-2000 passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) whereby the claim for appointment of the petitioner under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 has been refused. It has been stated by the petitioner that in the aforesaid communication, no reason has been given for such denial and as such the same is liable to be quashed by this Court. It is further stated that the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment in place of his deceased father who was a Tube-well Operator having been given appointment in the year 1987. The appointment letter dated 19-3-1987 has been filed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The appointment was temporary for a period of three years and he could be considered for re-appointment. Prior to joining he was to be given fifteen days training and his salary was fixed at Rs. 299. 00 per month. He was also entitled to leave as per conditions given in the appointment letter.

3. It has been stated that late Kashi Nath Chaube had filed a writ petition No. 9507 of 1996 claiming parity of pay with other regular tube-well operators in view of the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3558 (S/s) of 1992. By an order dated 20-5-1992 he was posted as Tube-well Assistant on a salary of Rs. 550. 00 per month and the nature of his duties was also defined. It is stated that the petitioners late father was posted as Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari by virtue of G. O. dated 30-6-99 and his name finds place at serial No. 40 of the list dated 9-7-99 prepared by the District Magistrate. It is the contention of the petitioner that his late father had worked for a period of nearly 12 years whereafter he died on 20- 8-1999 while in active service. The petitioner made an application dated 29-12-1999 for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground claiming that the petitioners qualification is Intermediate.

4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent wherein the facts as averred by the petitioner have not been disputed. However, it has been stated that by virtue of Government Order dated 26-10- 1998 (filed as Annexure-4 to the counter-affidavit) the dependants of part time Tube-well Operators are not entitled to the benefits of compassionate appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

5. Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court reported in 2005 Vol. I UPLBEC page 1, State of U. P. & Anr. v. Ram Sukhi Devi, and has contended that the G. O. dated 26-10- 1998 was not considered in that case by the High Court while passing an interim order and Honble Supreme Court was pleased to set aside the order of High Court. Paragraph 6 of the judgment is quoted hereunder:

"to say the least, approach of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench is judicially unsustainable and indefensible. The final relief sought for in the writ petition has been granted as an interim measure. There was no reason indicated by learned Single Judge as to why the Government Order dated 26-10- 1998 was to be ignored. Whether the writ petitioner was entitled to any relief in the writ petition has to be adjudicated at the time of final disposal of the writ petition. This Court has no numerous occasions observed that the final relief sought for should not be granted at an interim stage. The position is worsened if the interim direction has been passed with stipulation that the applicable Government Order has to be ignored. Time and again this Court has deprecated the practice of granting interim orders which practically give the principal relief sought in the petition for no better reason than that of prima facie case has been made out, without being concerned about the balance of convenience, the public interest and a host of o