A. K. YOG, J. ( 1 ) BY means of the present petition under Article 226, Constitution of India, Shri Ram Pandey (Petitioner) seeks to challenge order dated August 28, 1999 passed by Respondent No. 4/state of uttar Pradesh through Secretary, Ministry of Home (Police Department), U. P. Government, lucknow (Annexure-14 to the Writ Petition ). No Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents as yet even though copy of the petition was served on 17th May, 2000. The petition is listed for admission today. Considering the nature of the averments and that all the Respondents are represented, the petition is being finally decided at admission stage as contemplated under Rules of Court. ( 2 ) HEARD Shri Prakash Padia, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri J. P. Misra, learned standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. ( 3 ) AS per averments in the petition, father of the Petitioner one Tribhuvan Pandey was posted as diwan in the Department of Police at Varanasi and he was working on substantive basis when he died on 12th June, 1978 while in active service. As per Para 3 of the petition. Petitioner (son of aforesaid Tribhuvan Pandey) was born after six months of the death of his father. The other two sisters of the Petitioner are already married; dates of their marriages have not been disclosed in Para 8 of the petition. Admittedly, Petitioner pursued his education and passed High School examination in the year 1995 in II Division as stated in Para 4 of the petition. (Copy of High school Certificate annexed as, Annexure-1 ). In Para 5 of the petition it is stated that he passed intermediate Examination in the year 1997 (copy of Certificate of Intermedate Examination filed as Annexure-2 ). He also completed Typing Training Course as per certificate enclosed as annexure-3. He has been participating in kabdddi, and Volley-ball as stated in Para 7 of the petition. In Para 5 of the petition it is stated that he passed intermediate Examination in the year 1997 (copy of Certificate of Intermedate Examination filed as Annexure-2 ). He also completed Typing Training Course as per certificate enclosed as annexure-3. He has been participating in kabdddi, and Volley-ball as stated in Para 7 of the petition. From the documents annexed with the petition, it is the case of the Petitioner himself that he has good physique and fulfills all physical standards to make him available for being appointed in the Police Force in the State of U. P. According to the Petitioner his mother filed an affidavit along with applications representing to the concerned authority (Senior Superintendent of Police) for granting compassionate appointment to the Petitioner (Annexures-5, 6 and 7 to the writ Petition) referred to in Paras 9, 10 and 11 of the petition on the basis of the said applications and the affidavit certain enquiries were made and reports obtained vide Paras 12 to 18 read with annexures 8 to 13 of the petition since compassionate appointment was being sought after about 20 years of the death of his father. No relevant Government Order or material was referred to the state Government for approval. The State Government, however, vide its order dated 30th June, 1999 (as referred to in the impugned order dated 28th August, 1999, Annexure-14) rejected the application. Copy of the State Government Order dated 30th June, 1999 has not been annexed, neither there is anything on record that the Petitioner made effort to obtain copy of the order. I find no reason for giving direction to these authorities to supply copy of the same even though a prayer has been made for issuing a writ in the nature certiorari for issuing the same. Another prayer (as contained in the prayer clause) is for issuing a writ of. mandamus directing respondents to bring on record the said order dated 30th June, 1999. In the body of the petition from Paras 1 to 35 there is no mention that Petitioner has not been able to obtain copy of the said order and is, thus, not in a position to annex a copy of the same. mandamus directing respondents to bring on record the said order dated 30th June, 1999. In the body of the petition from Paras 1 to 35 there is no mention that Petitioner has not been able to obtain copy of the said order and is, thus, not in a position to annex a copy of the same. ( 4 ) THIS does not propose to non-suit the Petitioner on the ground of absence of necessary order or for the reason that he has categorically stated that he is not in a position to bring the same on record. This Court is conscious of the fact that procedural rules are handmade with an object to foster and promote natural justice instead of denying the same. ( 5 ) CONSIDERING the entirety of the circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that Petitioner should first approach Respondent No, 4/state of Uttar Pradesh through secretary, Ministry of Home (Police Department), U. P. Government, Lucknow and pray for furnishing a copy of the said order dated 30th June, 1999, referred to in the order dated 28th august, 1999 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi (copy of which has been filed as Annexure-14 to the petition ). If such an application is being made within two months, along with, a certified copy of this judgment, an authentic copy of the order dated 30th June 1999, referred to above, shall be supplied to the Petitioner by the concerned Secretary, Home department, Police within three weeks of the receipt of the application. ( 6 ) PETITIONER, on obtaining authentic copy of the order dated 30th June, 1999, referred to above, if so advised, may file a comprehensive representation containing full facts before Respondent No. 5 including the grounds for challenging the order dated 30th June, 1999. Such representation may be filed within three months of the receipt of authentic copy of order dated 30th June, 1999 and if such a representation as stipulated, is being filed before Respondent No. 5, he shall decide the same by passing reasoned order in accordance with law taking into account relevant government Orders and Rules on the subject as well as the record before it without being prejudiced by any observations made in the present judgment exercising its unfettered jurisdiction. The decision, so taken shall be commynicated to the Petitioner forthwith. The decision, so taken shall be commynicated to the Petitioner forthwith. ( 7 ) IN the cases reported in 1998 (32) ALR 532, 1997 (77) FLR 768 (SC) and AIR 1997 SC 3288 , it has been held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as of right. In the case reported in AIR 1996 SC 2445 , the Apex Court held that State through its instrumentality/authorities should framed Rules/ Regulations/orders for making a compassionate appointment which may stand the test of Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of India. ( 8 ) OUR Courts in the cases of 1997 (Suppl.) AWC 701, (1994) 6 SCC 560 , (1994) 1 UPLBEC 12 [director of Education (Basic)], (1991) 1 UPLBEC 345, AIR 1996 (2) SC 42, (1997) 3 UPLBEC 2047, 1994 (4) SCC 138 , held that scheme contemplating dying in harness is to meet emergent crises and it shall not be proper to give belated appointment. However, by passage of time and experience the Court expanded the theory of compassionate appointment by providing that no rigid rule of limitation should be applied in the matter of compassionate appointment and such a claim may be considered, in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case even if such a claim is being made belatedly. This gave an occasion to the State Government for issuing government Order providing for reference of cases to the Government for seeking approval, before making compassionate appointment in case the same was being made beyond five years of the death of the employee in question. No Rule and/or order or decision to the knowledge of this Court lays down that compassionate appointment is to be made even if the family of the deceased employee is not in distress. In other words, compassionate appointment cannot be justified only on the ground that some employee of the State Government or State authority/instrumentality has died. The condition precedent is not death of an incumbent in service, but also existence of distress of the family requiring a helping hand by providing compassionate appointment. In other words, compassionate appointment cannot be justified only on the ground that some employee of the State Government or State authority/instrumentality has died. The condition precedent is not death of an incumbent in service, but also existence of distress of the family requiring a helping hand by providing compassionate appointment. ( 9 ) IT is strange that in none of the Government Orders or Rules this Court has noticed a reciprocal condition requiring an undertaking from the beneficiary claiming compassionate appointment under Compassionate Rules/order like giving a bond or declaration to the effect that on getting compassionate appointment such a beneficiary shall be under statutory obligation to maintain other dependants of the family of deceased incumbent and in case he fails to discharge such a statutory obligation, he shall be liable to lose the job and face other such consequences as may be provided by statutory Rules/government Order/government Orders. One should not lose sight of the fact that a beneficiary under compassionate appointment gets over benefit of the deceased. ( 10 ) THIS Court is convinced that the Government authorities including the present Respondents have failed in not providing statutory obligation in the light of the above. ( 11 ) THIS Court, therefore, directs that a copy of this judgment shall be sent to the Chief Secretary for necessary information and further direction for introducing mandatory provision in the relevant Rules providing for compassionate appointment within three months of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Registrar is directed to send a copy of this judgment within two months from today. The Chief Secretary is hereby commanded to inform this Court of the action taken at his end and the Registrar shall place record of the case on 15th October, 2001 in Chambers before me since the petition is being finally decided. The writ petition stands allowed subject to the observation and direction given above. .