B. DIKSHIT, J. ( 1 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has sought relief for issue of writ of mandamus for providing employment as peon at Janta Inter College, Ahraula, District Azamgarh (hereinafter referred as College), which is recognised institution getting grant-in-aid from State Government and is being governed by the provisions of Intermediate Education Act, 1921. As this petition pertains to a person seeking employment due to death of his father, who was in employment as assistant Teacher at College, this Court directed Standing Counsel by order dated August 28, 1990 to file counter-affidavit within two weeks on behalf of State of Uttar Pradesh, Director of education (Secondary) U. P. and District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh. This Court also made it clear in said order that as petitioner seeks employment due to death of his father in harnesss, therefore, the petition can be decided at the admission stage. ( 2 ) THE Standing Counsel filed counter-affidavit for respondents represented by him. The petitioner filed rejoinder-affidavit. The petition has been argued by counsel for petitioner and standing Counsel having full knowledge of order of this Court for disposal at the admission stage and the petiion is being disposed of at this stage in accordance with Rules of the Court. ( 3 ) THE essential facts are that the petitioner moved an application on February 5, 1988 before the principal of the institution for appointing him as a peon. The application was moved for appointment in view of the fact that petitioners father Sri Ram Chet Misra died on December 31, 1987 during employment as an Assistant Teacher of L. T. Grade at the institution and, therefore, petitioner became entitled for appointment in view of Government Order No. 6648/15-7-1 (78)/1981, dated September 23, 1981. The Government Order provides that the dependants of an employee dying in harness will be appointed on a post in the grade of Class III of Class IV for which he is qualified. The Government Order also permits appointment in another institution in the district in case there is no vacancy at the institution. ( 4 ) THE Principal proposed appointment of petitioner on the post of peon and forwarded the relevant papers on May 2, 1989 to the District Inspector of Schools, for financial sanction. The Government Order also permits appointment in another institution in the district in case there is no vacancy at the institution. ( 4 ) THE Principal proposed appointment of petitioner on the post of peon and forwarded the relevant papers on May 2, 1989 to the District Inspector of Schools, for financial sanction. The district Inspector of Schools instead of granting financial sanction raised query on July 8, 1989 as to when and how the post fell vacant on which financial sanction for appointment of petitioner was sought. In reply to the query raised by the District Inspector of Schools the Principal replied on September 5, 1989 that he has appointed petitioner as peon as the institution is having only eight peons whereas it is entitled for 11, in view of strength for students at college. In his reply the Principal clarified that he has sought financial sanction in respect of petitioner after appointing him. When the District Inspector of Schools did not pass any order on recommendation of Principal and fetter sent by him, the petitioner filed writ petition before this court. This Court also permitted petitioner to make representation to District Inspector of schools for the redress of his grievance and directed the District Inspector of. Schools to decide the representation of petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of representation of petitioner. The petitioner filed certified copy of judgment pased in Writ Petition along with a representation on November 3, 1989. The District Inspector of Schools then on December 12, 1989 alter considering the representation of petitioner refused to accord financial sanction in respect of appointment of petitoner as peon at the institution. The reason assigned by him in the order is that, there are 8 sanctioned posts and 8 peons were working at the institution, hence in the absence of sanction of post or any vacancy the question of appointment of petitioner does not arise. It is under such circumstances that petitioner has filed the present petition. ( 5 ) THE question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether existence of vacancy or sanction of post is necessary before making appointment of a peon on compassionate ground in respect of an institution which stands governed in accordance with Intermediate education Act. It is under such circumstances that petitioner has filed the present petition. ( 5 ) THE question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether existence of vacancy or sanction of post is necessary before making appointment of a peon on compassionate ground in respect of an institution which stands governed in accordance with Intermediate education Act. In other words, can an appointment to the post of peon be refused in the absence of vacancy or due to want of sanction of a post of peon, where sanctioned posts are full. The counsel for petitioner has argued that the petitioners entitlement being on compassionate ground in compliance with the Government Order dated September 23, 1961, the petitioner is entitled for appointment irrespective of the fact whether there is a vacancy or not. He also argued that even the normal procedure of sanctioning of post and existence of vacancy be deviated for appointment of petitioner on compassionate ground. ( 6 ) THE argument advanced by Counsel for petitioner has much force. While considerting government Order dated September 23, 1981, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of dinesh Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh, (1992-I-LLJ-123) has taken the view that even if no post is there, it is mandatory on the apart of the State Government to create the post and appoint the person concerned. The Division Bench has relied upon the Judgment of Supreme Court of india in the case of Smt. Sushma Gosain v. Union of India (1990-I-LLJ-169 ). The Division bench has relied on paragraph 7 at page 170 of the said judgment wherein it has been held that: "we consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate grounds is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant. " ( 7 ) ON facts, present case is similar to case of Division Bench as well as Supreme Court of India. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant. " ( 7 ) ON facts, present case is similar to case of Division Bench as well as Supreme Court of India. The Counsel for petitoner has relied upon another case of this Court, Rajesh Singh v. Director of education, (1991) 1 UPLBEC 345 wherein considering same Government Order of September 23, 1981 a learned Single Judge has taken the view that post is created automatically if there is no post vacant at institution. According to the view expressed in this case, no sanction of the post is necessary. Considering the reasons assigned by District Inspector of Schools, in the light of aforesaid decisions, I am of the opinion that the reason assigned by the District Inspector of schools, Azamgarh, in his order dated December 20, 1989 that there was neither any vacant post of peon at the institution nor any new post was sanctioned and, therefore, the petitioner could not be appointed is contrary to view expressed in cases referred to earlier. ( 8 ) NOW the question which arises for consideration is to what relief petitioner is entitled in this petition. Petitioners father died on December 31, 1987. According to averments in paragraph 5 of writ petition, which are not disputed in counter-affidavit, the petitioner was qualified for being appointed on the post of clerk but he was prepared to work as a peon considering the financial condition of his family. He applied for appointment on February 5, 1988 as peon soon after the death of his father. The Principal of the institution proposed appointment of petitioner and sought financial sanction on May 2, 1989. According to averments made in paragraph 8 of the writ petition the petitioner was appointed as peon, which fact was admitted by the Principal in his letter dated September 5, 1989. As it has not been specifically denied in the counter-affidavit that petitioner was not appointed, the fact will be deemed to have been admitted. The District inspector of Schools did not pay salary and sat tight over the matter which necessitated filing of writ petition by petitioner. As it has not been specifically denied in the counter-affidavit that petitioner was not appointed, the fact will be deemed to have been admitted. The District inspector of Schools did not pay salary and sat tight over the matter which necessitated filing of writ petition by petitioner. It was in compliance with the order dated October 25, 1989 passed in writ petition that the District Inspector of Schools passed impugned order dated December 20, 1989 giving rise to this petition. It is apparent from said fact that despite being appointed by principal, the District Inspector of Schools, did not grant financial sanction. Once the fact about petitioner being appointed by Principal is not disputed then petitioner is entitled for his salary right from the time of his appointment and he is entitled for the relief of payment of salary also. ( 9 ) FOR aforesaid reasons, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed, order dated December 20, 1989 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh, (Annexure-7 to writ petition) is quashed. Respondents No. 1 to 3 are directed to treat the petitioner as duly appointed peon on a sanctioned post at Janta Inter College, Ahraula, Azamgarh and a Writ of mandamus is issued directing respondent No. 3 to pay the salary of petitioner since his appointment as peon by the principal of said institution. The respondent No. 3 is directed to make payment of arrears of salary within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. ( 10 ) THE petitioner is entitled for costs from respondent Nos. 1 to 3. .