ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been preferred from an order passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal on the writ petition filed by the respondents directing the b appellant to appoint the respondents under the dying in harness rules within a period of one month from the date of production of the certified copy of the High Court's order. 3. The High Court appears to have completely overlooked the arguments of the appellant. The appellant is a public sector undertaking being wholly owned by the State Government. It was declared a sick company by the c Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 on 21-8-1995. It is not in dispute that it continues to remain sick till today. 4. The respondent's father died while in employment with the appellant on 29-3-2001. The respondent's mother applied for a job for the respondent under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1974 Rules"). The case of the C appellant, which was that although the 1974 Rules were extended to public sector companies by a government order on 31-8-1991, they did not apply to public sector units which were sick by virtue of the second government order dated 22-1-2000. Therefore, when the respondent's mother applied for compassionate appointment of the respondent the 1974 Rules were not applicable to the appellant. This aspect of the matter has not been adverted to E by the High Court although the stand was specifically taken in the affidavit filed by the appellant in opposition to the respondent's writ petition. 5. Additionally, the High Court did not consider the further affidavit filed by the appellant to the effect that there were 19 employees who had died in the appellant's service prior to Respondent 1 s father. Despite that, no appointment had been given to them because of the second government order on 22-1-2000. This aspect has also been ignored by the High Court. ' 6. What the High Court took into consideration was the supplementary affidavit filed by the respondent in 2004 stating that the appellant's mill had regularised 225 daily wagers in 2004. On such basis the High Court directed Respondent 1 to be appointed under the 1974 Rules as we have already stated. ' 6. What the High Court took into consideration was the supplementary affidavit filed by the respondent in 2004 stating that the appellant's mill had regularised 225 daily wagers in 2004. On such basis the High Court directed Respondent 1 to be appointed under the 1974 Rules as we have already stated. The High Court also stated that any ban by the State Government on appointments would not come in the way of the respondent under the 1974 Rules. 7. The reasoning of the High Court is contradictory. The daily wagers who were regularised were not regularised under the 1974 Rules. The only question before the High Court was whether the 1974 Rules applied to the appellant. In view of the second government order dated 22-1-2000 it cannot ' but be held that they did not. 8. Apart from the aforesaid infirmities, the High Court was also wrong in directing appointment of the respondents without remanding the matter to the appellant for the purpose of consideration of the fitness of the respondents to be appointed. For all these reasons the decision of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed without any order as to costs.