JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Om Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for the opposite parties.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that father of the petitioner late Jagdish Prasad Verma, who was the only earning member of the family, died in harness on 31.7.2012 while working on the post of 'Sangrah Chaprasi (Collection Peon) at Tehsil Mohammadi, District Lakhimpur Kheri. After death of his father the petitioner preferred representation to the opposite parties for being appointed on compassionate ground under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. In pursuance of the application preferred by the petitioner the petitioner was appointed by means of order dated 31.5.2013 on the post of Sangrah Anusewak (Collection Peon) which is a class IV post. The petitioner has been continuously working on the said post since 2013.

3. In the present petition the petitioner is seeking promotion to the post of Sangrah Amin (Collection Amin) which is a class III post from the date of his initial appointment. In effect it is case of the petitioner that the petitioner was in fact qualified for being appointed on class III post but the opposite parties in a most illegal and arbitrary manner have appointed him on class IV Post. It is stated that there was a recommendation by the Additional District Magistrate, Kheri for appointing him on a class III post but ignoring the said recommendation the petitioner has been appointed on class IV post though the petitioner could not show any provision or rule by which he could have been appointed on a class III post considering the fact that his father died in harness while working on class IV post.

4. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition and submits that the definition of "suitable post" defined in Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974 has been interpreted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Premlata, Civil Appeal No. 6003 of 2021 (decided on 05.10.2021). In the said case Supreme Court while setting aside the judgment of High Court where the High Court had held hat suitable post under clause 5 of the Rules of 1974 would mean any post suitable according to the qualification for the post of the candidate. Hon'ble Supreme Court, on the other hand, has observed that such an interpretation would defeat the very purpose of compassionate appointment under Dying in Harness Rules and held that suitable post has to be interpreted with regard to the post held by deceased government servant.

5. Subsequently the judgment of Prem Lata (Supra) was further considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Suneel Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Civil Appeal No.5038 of 2022 (decided on 02.08.2022). The finding of Supreme Court are quoted hereinbelow:-

"11. It is clear that the Annexure P-1 does not represent statutory Rules. We do not think we should be persuaded to take a different view as things stand. We cannot eclipse the dimension that the whole purport of the scheme of compassionate appointment is to reach immediate relief to the bereaved family. In such circumstances, the meaning placed on the words "suitable employment" bearing in mind the post held by the deceased employee cannot be said to be an unreasonable or incorrect view."

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. It is noticed that in pursuance of the application made by the petitioner for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 the competent authority has appointed the petitioner on a class IV post of Sangrah Anusewak. It is after a period of ten years that he wants that his appointment should be considered on any class III post. It is further noticed that the deceased father of the petitioner was working on class IV post of Collection Peon and consequently even if the petitioner is qualified for appointment on a higher post of class III as per his qualification, he can be appointed on a post whic