JUDGMENT S. S. Ahmad, J. 1. The petitioner whose services have been terminated by the impugned order dated 23rd February, 1984 (Annexure-4) was appointed as a Lekhpal in place of his father, Ram Nay an Pandey who was, as stated in para 1 of the petition, murdered on 14th July, 1982, while in service as Lekhpal. 2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on various grounds including that he having been appointed on compassionate grounds under the provisions of the U. P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, his services could not have been terminated on the ground that he was an untrained Lekhpal particularly when there was an order no. 67-1/1/75-597-Ra-9 dated 24-4-80 issued by the Government which required that a special examination would be held for such dependents in order to regularise their service. This was reiterated in BO. No. 10953/4-58/78 dated 17-8-83. Although counter affidavit has not been filed by the opposite parties, the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions on their behalf on the basis of the original record. It has been pointed out by him Ram Nayan Pandey, petitioner's father, had, before his alleged murder, attained the age of superannuation and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid Rules as his father could not be said to be still in service on the date of his death. The learned Standing Counsel has, however, stated on the basis of the instructions given to him that Ram Nayan Pandey had been paid his salary regularly even after he attained the age of superannuation. 3. Rule 2(b) defines "decesed Government servant." It means a Government servant who dies while in service. Since it is not disputed that Ram Nayan Pandey deceased was being paid his salary regularly even after he attained the age of superannuation, he cannot but be treated to have continued in service even there after. Since on 14th July, 1982, Ram Nayan Pandey was still in service, the benefit of the above rules were validly extended to the petitioner. 4. It may be, mentioned that the aforesaid rules have over-riding effect as mentioned in Rule 4 and, as provided by Rule 5 the State Government would be competent to give an appointment to a dependent of the government servant dying in harness, in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules. 4. It may be, mentioned that the aforesaid rules have over-riding effect as mentioned in Rule 4 and, as provided by Rule 5 the State Government would be competent to give an appointment to a dependent of the government servant dying in harness, in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules. The only requirment is that the said dependent fulfils the educational qualification prescribed for the post. It is not disputed that the petitioner possesses the requisite educational qualification. Since it is established that the petitioner was the dependent of a government servant who had died in harness and that he was appointed as lekhpal under the provisions of the a fores lid Rules, his services could not have been terminated by the impugned order on the ground that he was an untrained lekhpal. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this connection has invited our attention to the Government's Order No. 67-l/l/75-597-Ra-9 dated 24-4-80 as also Boards' Order to the same effect which lay down that the dependent of a government servant who was appointed on compassionate ground shall be required, on completion of three years' of service, to appear in the examination held specially for him and on passing the said examination he would be treated to be a trained Lekhpal. 5. The Supreme Court in Ramanna D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489 has observed as under : "It is a well settled rule of administrative law that an executive authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its action to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them." 6. A similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in its earlier decision in Dr. Amarjit Singh Ahluwaliah v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 984 (990). Judged in the light of the above decision of the Supreme Court, the action of the opposite parties in terminating the services of the petitioner cannot be justified in law. The opposite parties, in the particular circumstances of the case, can be compelled to act in accordance with the G. O) dated 24-4-80 and the Boards' order dated 17th August, 1983 referred to above. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The opposite parties, in the particular circumstances of the case, can be compelled to act in accordance with the G. O) dated 24-4-80 and the Boards' order dated 17th August, 1983 referred to above. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23rd February, 1984 contained in Annexure-4 is hereby quashed with the direction that the petitioner shall be reinstated in service and shall thereafter be required to appear in special examination held in accordance with the G.O. No. 67-1/1/75-597-Ra-9 dated 24-4-80 his services regularised on the basis of the result of that examination. 7. Parties will bear their own costs. Petition allowed.