By the Court.—Heard Sri Q.H. Rizvi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the appellant State and Km. Vishwa Mohini the learned counsel for the sole respondent who submits that so far as the claim of the compassionate appointment is concerned, the same was dependent on the regular status of employment of the father of the respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the State submits that since he had not been regularized, therefore in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(8) ADJ 664 (FB), Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.15505 of 2005, decided on 22.9.2010, the claim of the respondent petitioner ought not have been decreed by the learned Single Judge and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

3. The sheet anchor of the argument therefore is based on the answer given by the Full Bench judgment which is extracted hereinunder :

“1. A daily wager and workcharge employee employed in connection with the affairs of the Uttar Pradesh, who is not holding any post, whether substantive or temporary, and is not appointed in any regular vacancy, even if he was working for more than 3 years, is not a ‘Government servant’ within the meaning of Rule 2 (a) of U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974, and thus his dependants on his death in harness are not entitled to compassionate appointment under these Rules.”

4. Replying to the aforesaid submissions learned counsel for the respondent petitioner submits that the termination of employment or even death of the employee does not absolve the employer from taking into consideration the status of the employment, more so in the present facts where the Government order dated 13.8.2015 had already intervened calling upon the State Government and its department to consider the regularization of such employees and therefore, once the consideration about the father of the respondent was under progress, and a list had been forwarded, the State Government ought to have concluded the same and on the strength of said decision, could have taken a decision with regard to the claim of the respondent petitioner.

5. It is urged that having not done so, the order impugned in the writ petition which did not contain any reason deserved to be quashed. It is therefore submitted that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in proceeding to issue direction for consideration of the employment of the respondent petitioner on compassionate basis treating his father’s services as having been regularized.

6. We have considered the aforesaid submissions raised and so far as the ratio of the Full Bench judgment of Pawan Kumar Yadav (supra) is concerned, there is no doubt that the claim of compassionate appointment of the dependant of a daily wager or a work charge employee is not admissible.

7. The order which was impugned in the writ petition refusing to consider the claim of the respondent petitioner dated 11.4.2016 simply states that the claim of the respondent petitioner was not found feasible as per the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. The name of the petitioner’s father has been mentioned as a daily wager but no reason has been given for declining the request. There is no consideration about the claim of the regularization of the father of the respondent petitioner. The order dated 11.4.2016 is thus clearly unsustainable in law.

8. The issue and circumstances of the nature presently involved do not appear to have been the matter of reference in the case of Pawan Kumar Yadav (supra). All the cases, the illustration whereof was given in para-9 of the Full Bench judgment, does not appear to be similar on facts as presently involved.

However, in the present case, this claim has to be looked into from the point of view that the father of the respondent petitioner was entitled for being regularized in view of the terms a