Hon’ble Ashok Pal Singh, J.—Heard Sri U.S.Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants-State and Smt. Susheela Singh, respondent, in person and perused the records.

2. This intra Court appeal arises out of the Judgment and order dated 23.2.1998 passed by learned Single Judge in the writ petition preferred by the respondent for providing all benefits of service of her husband, late Sri Gulab Singh to her and also to give her appointment on compassionate ground on Class-IV post.

3. The record reveals that the respondent’s husband had died in-harness while serving as Constable in G.R.P., Kanpur Central Railway. Smt. Susheela Singh, present respondent, was an accused in the murder of her husband late Gulab Singh and a trial is pending before the concerned sessions Court. This fact appears to have not been brought into the notice of writ Court at the time when impugned order had been passed.

4. During pendency of the instant appeal, it was noticed that the record of aforesaid sessions trial had been summoned by the writ Court and after final decision in the writ petition, the same was attached with the record of the writ petition and consigned to the Record Room by the official concerned who died during his service period. In the circumstances, the Court vide its order dated 20.11.2013 observed that entire progress of the trial had been held up due to the mistake committed by the deceased employee. However, because of the said employee being no more, the Court confined itself for directing the record of the sessions trial in the High Court to be remitted to the District Judge concerned and further directing him to get the proceedings of the trial concluded. Again vide order dated 22.1.2014 a direction was issued to the District Judge concerned to instruct the Court in which the sessions trial was pending to conclude the trial as early as possible within three months from the date of the order passed.

5. We have been informed by the parties concerned that aforesaid sessions trial has still not been concluded.

6. This fact is not disputed between the parties that entire service benefits of her late husband, Gulab Singh have been received by the respondent during the pendency of the instant appeal. The only controversial issue left between the parties for decision is with regard to entitlement of appointment of the respondent on compassionate ground.

7. Submission of learned Standing Counsel is that the impugned order directing for compassionate appointment to be given to the respondent on Class IV post was passed nearly 15 years ago and that respondent who is an old lady is now more than 50 years old. She is also facing trial on charge of the murder of her own husband in whose place she has sought compassionate appointment. The said trial is still pending and has not been concluded. Under these circumstances, providing compassionate appointment to the respondent would not be legally justified and also would be against the public policy.

8. It appears that considering the gravity of the legal implication now arising after more than 15 years of passing of the impugned order, the respondent Smt. Susheela Singh appearing in person is also not willing to be appointed on compassionate ground. In this regard, she has moved a supplementary-affidavit on 21.8.2014 wherein para 2 it has been submitted by her that in view of the impugned order passed by learned single Judge, she had moved an application to the appellants for her son, Raghuvendrra Pratap Singh be considered for appointment on compassionate ground, but, the said application was rejected by the Superintendent of Police, Railway, Allahabad vide his order dated 14.5.2012(appended as Annexure 1 to the aforesaid supplementary-affidavit) on the grounds that till the case of the respondent is not decided by the Court, her son cannot be considered for appointment on compassionate ground and that such an application for her son ought to have been moved within a period of fiv