Judgment :- This writ petition was registered on the basis of a letter that was published in the "Malayala Manorama" dated 22-4288. Brijithamma, widow of one Cleetus, portrayed her plight after her husband's death through the columns of the newspaper, aforesaid. It is said that the dead body of Cleetus, a forest guard, was found in a pond, inside the reserve forest. It was a suspected case of homicide, at the hands of persons who had trespassed into the reserved forest for unlawful purposes. 2. Notice on the writ petition was issued to the Government on 13-5-88. Nineteen months later, after several adjournments on 6-12-89 a counter affidavit was filed to the effect that reports from the Chief Conservator of Forests and District Collector were awaited to decide on the course of action to be taken. An additional counter affidavit was filed on 7-2-90 stating that a decision had been taken to give appointment to Smt. Brijithamma and that her turn for appointment "as per the criteria adopted for giving employment to persons under the dying in harness scheme as on today is 13th". The criteria is cryptic, as cryptic could be and one knows not, what it is. 3. Fact remains that, for as long as six years - along time in the life of a young woman - Brijithamma remained without succour or solace. The pace at which Government moved before the writ petition or after notice was issued on it, is certainly not fast, or commendable. 4. The need to provide support to dependents of employees dying in harness cannot be over emphasised. It has found statutory recognition in the rules. Such humane provisions must be implemented in the spirit in which they are conceived and must not be left as antiques on the mantelpiece. In applying procedural regulations, the letter of law should not be read to its bitter end. 5. In Sushma Gosain v. Union of India (AIR 1989 S.C.1976), the Supreme Court pointed out the impropriety in making a widow wait for three years to get the benefits. There is even less justification in making a widow wait for six years, after the decision of the Supreme Court on 25-8-89 which is law in the territory of India. Government must update and humanise its outlook. 6. There is even less justification in making a widow wait for six years, after the decision of the Supreme Court on 25-8-89 which is law in the territory of India. Government must update and humanise its outlook. 6. Supreme Court also pointed out that even " If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant". The State of Kerala is directed to appoint petitioner in an available suitable vacancy or by creating a supernumerary vacancy within three weeks from today. They will also consider the question of compensating Brijithamma for her loss, which in a manner of speaking, is incommensurable. The State shall also cause proper investigation to be made into the cause of death of Cleetus and take further necessary action. The then Home Minister of the State is seen to have given assurances that necessary action would be taken in this behalf. The assurances should not remain, as memories of yesteryears. 7. Original petition is allowed as above. No costs. The Registrar of this court will forward a copy of this judgment to the Chief secretary to the Government of Kerala and to Smt. Brijithamma. I express appreciation of the help rendered as Amicus Curiae by Shri B. Radhakrishnan, who argued the case ably.