JUDGMENT In this petition, the petitioner seeks appointment on the compassionate grounds. The petitioner submits that her husband was in the employment of the M.P. State Electricity Board and he died on 5th May, 1992. The petitioner has represented in this regard but vide order annexure P/10. She has been informed that appointment on compassionate grounds can be permitted only if the deceased has rendered continuous service of fifteen years. This also was a subject-matter of consideration in writ petition No. 467 of 1993 (Bajli Karmachari Sangh & Ors. v. The M.P. Electricity Board & Ors.) and it was found that distinction or classification between sets of categories that is those who have completed 15 years of service and those who have not completed such service is without any rotionale. It is an artificial classification and would be hit by the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. For this reliance was placed on the decisions given by the Supreme Court, Kerala High Court and Allahabad High Court. These may be noticed. The Supreme Court has laid down the conditions to be fulfilled to pass the test of permissible classification in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130 . The conditions are :- "(i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguished persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group, and (ii) that the differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Statute in question." The question as lo whether this artificial distinction can be created, was considered by the Kerala High Court in G.S. Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala, 1992 Lab. I.C. 2349. It was observed : "The objects sought to be achieved by introducing the scheme is to give employment assistance to dependants of Government servants who died in harness. Dependants of government servants who died inharness are therefore equals in the matter of consideration for employment assistance. By classification of such persons into different categories discriminatory treatment is accorded to them." Again the Allahabad High Court in Sunil Kumar Shrivastava v. Collector/District Magistrate, Sultanpur and others, 68 I.F. and Lab. Journal 29, it was held as under : "Dying in Harness Rule has been framed to provide employment atleast to one of the dependants of the deceased public servant. Journal 29, it was held as under : "Dying in Harness Rule has been framed to provide employment atleast to one of the dependants of the deceased public servant. The question as to whether the said Rule would be operative only w.e.f. a particular date or not : can also be judged on the scale of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Although, the nexus of that particular date has not been challel1ge d in the writ petition hence I am not inclined to interfere into that field in this particular case, but I confine myself, by observing that social legislation and rule should be read in the light of its preamble and object. The object is to provide employment to dependant of a deceased employee, hence that rule should not be strictly construed if the deceased public servant expired prior to the cut off date." In this view of the matter, the petitioner has a case for appointment on compassionate grounds. The petition filed by her in this Court be treated as representation. The appropriate decision be taken within a period of three months. The period of three months would commence from the date the copy of this order and the copy of the writ petition with its Annexure are made available to the respondent-Board. Security, if paid, be refunded to the petitioner.