Hon’ble Rakesh Srivastava, J.—Sri Banwari Lal, the husband of the petitioner and an employee of the opposite parties, unfortunately died in harness. After the death of Sri Banwari Lal, by an order dated 5.9.1985 passed by the Regional Food Controller, Faizabad Region, Faizabad, the petitioner was appointed, on ad hoc and temporary basis, to the post of Watchman under The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (“Dying in Harness Rules”) and was posted at Bahraich Center. It was stated in the appointment order that since the petitioner was appointed on absolutely ad hoc and temporary basis, the services of the petitioner were liable to be terminated at any time, without notice.

2. In pursuance of her appointment order, the petitioner joined the department and started working. After completing ten years of service, by an order dated 30.4.1998, the services of the petitioner, alongwith other employees mentioned in the said order, were regularized. The petitioner continued to work in the department till she attained the age of superannuation on 30.9.2005. After her superannuation, the petitioner requested the opposite parties to pay to her the retiral dues to which she was entitled under law. On the representation made by the petitioner, the petitioner was paid Group Insurance, leave encashment etc. Insofar as the pension was concerned, the same was denied to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not completed ten years of “qualifying service” in order to enable the petitioner to claim pension. This led to the filing of the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules is necessarily a regular appointment. He has submitted that the entire period from the date of initial appointment i.e. 5.9.1985 till the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.9.2005, had to be taken into account while computing “qualifying service” for the purposes of grant of pension.

4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the service rendered by the petitioner on ad hoc basis could not be taken into account while computing the “qualifying service” for the purposes of payment of pension and since the petitioner had less than eight years of regular service to her credit, the petitioner was not entitled to pension.

5. Heard Sri S.P. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

6. The short question to be answered in th e present writ petition is as to whether compassionate appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules could be made on ad hoc, temporary or daily wage basis or appointment under the said Rules is a permanent appointment.

7. It is settled that appointment in public services are to be made strictly in accordance with merit and in accordance with the procedure provided in the rules. However, compassionate appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules is an exception to the general rule. When an earning member of a family unexpectedly passes away, his whole family is subjected to misery and privation. To mitigate the hardship caused on account of sudden change in the status and affairs of the family and to save the family of the deceased Government servant from destitution, the concept of compassionate appointment has been carved out.

8. The object of compassionate appointment has been succinctly stated in the case in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138. At page 139 of the said report, the Apex Court has made the following observations :

“As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However,