PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been moved under Article 226 of the constitution of India for mandamus directing the respondents to pay the family pension to the petitioner and also to provide job to her son on compassionate ground. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner was engaged as Chowkidar by respondent No. 3 in February, 1983. He died during the service on 13. 9. 1995. It is alleged that the husband of the petitioner was in apay scale of Rs. 750-940 with facilities of General provident Fund, Group Insurance etc. After the death of her husband the petitioner moved an application before the authorities for family pension and completed necessary formalities by filling the forms. Also, she wrote to the respondent No. 3 that her son the given appointment on compassionate ground. The husband of the petitioner before his death had fulfilled all necessary qualification for his regularization under the scheme of Ministry of communication. In the year 1992 case of the petitioner's husband for regularization was sent to the higher authorities. But the husband of the petitioner was wrongly denied" regularization and consequently the petitioner was wrongly denied the post retiremental benefits like family pension and appointment to her son on compassionate ground. Several representation were made to the respondents but went in vein. Hence the writ petition. ( 3 ) THE respondents filed their counter affidavit in which it is admitted that Sri Kanhaiya lal Thapaliyal, husband of the petitioner was appointed as part time Chowkidar in dehradun Kutchary Post Office vide Memo. dated 14. 2. 1983, It is also admitted that the said employee died on 13. 9. 1995. It is also admitted in the counter affidavit that on 16. 11. 1996 petitioner applied for appointment of her son on compassionate ground but it is stated that since the deceased was casual labour of Temporary status as such the rules relating to the appointment under dying-in-harness did not apply to his case. In the para-wise reply it has been stated that the monthly wages of the deceased, from February 1983 to November 1989, was Rs. 371 per month, which was, revised w. e. f. 5. 2. 1986 and increased to Rs. 563 per month. In the para-wise reply it has been stated that the monthly wages of the deceased, from February 1983 to November 1989, was Rs. 371 per month, which was, revised w. e. f. 5. 2. 1986 and increased to Rs. 563 per month. But since the petitioner's husband was not absorbed before his death as regular group 'd' employee, the 50% of the services rendered by him under temporary status were not to be counted for the purposes of his retiremental benefits. It is, however, stated in the counter affidavit that merely by serving for 12 year as casual labour one does not become entitled to be the pensionary benefits. But it is admitted that pension papers were submitted by the petitioner and same were forwarded to the competent authority i. e. Director of Postal account, Lucknow, where from the same were rejected as the petitioner was not a regular employee of the department. On the same ground the rules relating to the appointment under dying-in-harness were stated to be not applicable. ( 4 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. ( 5 ) THE short question before this Court is whether the petitioner was wrongly denied family pension after death of her husband, by the respondents? Also, whether the petitioner's son was wrongly denied appointment on compassionate ground by the department concern? ( 6 ) MR. Sanjay Kaushik, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner's husband w. e. f. 29. 11. 1989 was granted temporary status as casual labour he was entitled to the benefits under the scheme mentioned in Communication No. 45-95/87-SPB-i dated 12. 4. 1991 from Director General of Posts (copy annexed CA-2 to the counter affidavit ). This fact is admitted in para 7 to the counter affidavit by the respondents. The aforesaid Annexure CA-2 to the counter affidavit in its para 1 shows that the casual labourers who have worked for more than 240 days in a year shall be given temporary status. Para 6 of the said scheme also provides that 50% of the service rendered under temporary status would be counted for the purposes of retirement benefits after regularization as a regular group 'd' official. Para 6 of the said scheme also provides that 50% of the service rendered under temporary status would be counted for the purposes of retirement benefits after regularization as a regular group 'd' official. The another important point as para 8 of the aforesaid scheme (copy of annexure CA-2) which provides that after rendering three years' continuous service after conferment of temporary status, the casual labourers would be treated at par with temporary group 'd' employees for the purposes of contribution to General Provident Fund, and they would also further be eligible for the grant of Festival Advance etc. on the same conditions as are applicable to temporary Group 'd' employee. That being so husband of the petitioner had completed three years of his temporary status on 28. 11. 1992 while his date of death is admittedly 13. 9. 1995. But all above benefits get diluted and washed away due to the para 7 of this aforesaid Labourers (grant of temporary status and regularization) Scheme dated 12. 4. 1991, which reads as under:-"7. conferment of Temporary status does not automatically imply that the casual labourers would be appointed as regular Group 'd' employee within any fixed time frame. Appointment to Group 'd' vacancies will continue to be done as per the extant recruitment rules, which stipulate preference to eligible Extra Department (ED) Employees. " ( 7 ) IT is the above said para 7 due to which the petitioner is not entitled to the pensionary benefits, as her husband had not been duly regularized before his death. ( 8 ) AS far as the recruitment on compassionate ground is concerned learned Counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to para 17 of above scheme and submitted that the petitioner's son should have been given job on the death of his father under dying-in-harness rules. The said para 17 needs to be read carefully which is being reproduced as under:-"17. No recruitment from open market for Group 'd' posts except compassionate appointments will be done till casual labourers with the requisite qualification are available to fill up the posts in question. The said para 17 needs to be read carefully which is being reproduced as under:-"17. No recruitment from open market for Group 'd' posts except compassionate appointments will be done till casual labourers with the requisite qualification are available to fill up the posts in question. " ( 9 ) CAREFUL reading of the above para 17 of the scheme makes it clear that against the vacant posts only either the dependants of the deceased regular employees can be recruited, or the casual labourers given temporary status can be given appointment on regular basis as a regular Group 'd' employee. It no where permits appointments on compassionate ground to dependants of non-regular employees. ( 10 ) IN view of the above discussions though this Court has sympathy with the petitioner but she is not entitled to any relief claim by her as of right. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Writ Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .