Hon’ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.—Heard rival submissions and perused the record.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 18.2.2015 passed by respondent No. 3 (Joint Secretary, U.P. Government, Lucknow) and the order dated 17.3.2015 passed by respondent No. 4 (Superintendent of Police, Railway, Allahabad) and further prayed for direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for the appointment on compassionate ground on account of death his father Shri Gulab Singh on dying-in-harness in place of her mother Sushila Singh.

3. It appears from the record that late Shri Gulab Singh (father of the petitioner) was working as Constable in Government Railway Police and died-in-harness on 4.5.1994. After his death his wife namely Smt. Sushila Singh made claim before the authorities for consideration of her claim regarding compassionate appointment and release of gratuity, fund etc. It is averred that the same were not given to her as she was made accused in the murder of her husband Shri Gulab Singh. Finally she approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 7638 of 1995 (Smt. Sushila Singh v. State of U.P. and others). The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 23.2.1998 with direction to the respondents for release of service benefit of her late husband Shri Gulab Singh and also consider her claim for compassionate appointment on Class-IV post. In compliance thereof the respondents had released the gratuity and fund as well as fixed the family pension but compassionate appointment had been denied and filed Special Appeal No. 1384 of 2009. The appellate Court vide order dated 9.9.2014 had allowed the special appeal with following observations :

“Considering the entire facts and circumstances, it is quite clear to us that the impugned order was passed by the writ Court on sympathetic and humanitarian grounds in ignorance of the pendency of the criminal case against the respondent about murder of her own husband. Such an appointment would not only be legally not sustainable but would also be against public policy so long as the respondent is not acquitted in the trial. Moreover, now after 15 years of the passing of the impugned order and considering the fact that respondent has now reached an age of 50 years it appears to us that the writ petition filed by the respondent has lost its efficacy and in this view the impugned order deserves to be set aside. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances, we feel that the matter still needs a sympathetic and humanitarian consideration for which a direction needs to given to the respondents to consider the respondent’s son for compassionate appointment in place of respondent for the reason of his becoming now eligible and the family of respondent still living in acute financial crisis and also for the reason that Smt. Susheela Singh who had been considered for appointment on compassionate ground could not be appointed due to criminal case. The next dependent of the deceased employee may be considered by the appellants for appointment on compassionate grounds.

In view of above, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with a direction to the appellants to consider the case of respondent’s son, Raghuvendra Pratap Singh for appointment on compassionate ground in place of respondent on account of deceased Gulab Singh dying in harness. It will be open for the respondent to get an appropriate application moved in this regard to the appellants within six weeks of this order. In case such an application is moved the same shall be considered and decided by the appellants within next two months by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, needless to say that order shall be passed keeping the object and spirit of compassionate appointment in mind in the light of directions given herein above.

The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the appeal is allowed subject to a