JUDGMENT Hon’ble D.P. Singh, J.—Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. This bunch of writ petition raises common question as to whether the dependents of seasonal employees of Cane Cooperative Societies are entitled for compassionate appointment. Since substantial facts and the issues of law involved are same, they are all being decided together. However, for the sake of convenience, the writ petition No. 40099 of 2006 is taken up as the leading case. 3. The father of the petitioner was working as a Seasonal Clerk in Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti, Daurala in district Meerut. He died in harness on 1.6.2005. The petitioner who holds a high school certificate approached the Cane Commissioner through District Cane officer through application dated 13.7.2005 and 22.12.2005 but when no action was forthcoming, he preferred writ petition No. 9893 of 2006 (Kapil Kumar v. State of U.P. and others) and a learned Single Judge of this Court without going into the merits of the claim or inviting a counter affidavit, vide an order dated 17.2.2006 disposed off the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to decide his claim by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks. In pursuance thereto, the Cane Commissioner vide his impugned order dated 27.3.2006 rejected the claim on the ground that there is no provision in the service rules for compassionate appointment and further in view of a Government Order clarifying that the U.P. Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 does not apply to seasonal employees. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that a seasonal employee draws similar pay scale as a regular employee alongwith allowance and therefore they are to be treated similarly and since dependents of deceased regular employees are entitled for compassionate appointment, refusal to the dependents of seasonal employees would be hit by Article 14 and on the same premise it is urged that the Government Orders dated 26.5.2000 and 20.12.2006 ought to be quashed. 5. Before proceeding further it would be appropriate to examine the status of seasonal employees. 6. The services of all employees of Cane Development Unions or Societies are governed by U.P. Cane Cooperative Service Regulations, 1975 framed under Section 122 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. Under Chapter II Regulation 3, the members of service have been classified where the permanent staff and seasonal staff have been differently classified. 6. The services of all employees of Cane Development Unions or Societies are governed by U.P. Cane Cooperative Service Regulations, 1975 framed under Section 122 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. Under Chapter II Regulation 3, the members of service have been classified where the permanent staff and seasonal staff have been differently classified. Though initially the seasonal staff was entitled only to a fixed pay but the Cane Commissioner sanctioned a regular pay scale to them. Under Chapter III power to fix strength of different categories of the regular staff and their recruitment has been provided. The seasonal staff, as the name itself suggests, are appointed only for crushing season. Under Chapter IV Regulation 21 they are to be categorized in A’ and B’ categories on the basis of their work and worth during the previous crushing season. The strength of employment of seasonal staff has to be determined by the Committee of Management of the Union or Society and subject to availability of work the seasonal staff categorized as A’ would be entitled for automatic re-employment in the next session but in case the work load or strength is reduced in any particular year, they cannot seek re-employment subject to their seniority. Disciplinary proceedings against seasonal staff has to be completed within the season itself vide regulation 27 but at the end of the crushing season it would automatically be dropped. Under Regulation 34, the services of any seasonal staff may be terminated at any time on a week’s notice or its salary in lieu thereof. Under Regulation 40 read with Regulation 41 and its schedule thereof, all posts in the permanent cadre are to be filed to the extent of 50% through direct recruitment and 50% by preferment/promotion from the seasonal staff, subject to their qualification and seniority. 7. From the very nature of their job and the conditions of service applicable to the seasonal employees especially the power of their termination, preferment/appointment, it cannot be said that they fall in the same category as the permanent staff. Thus, under the rules, they cannot claim parity on all counts as they form a distinct class by themselves. 7. From the very nature of their job and the conditions of service applicable to the seasonal employees especially the power of their termination, preferment/appointment, it cannot be said that they fall in the same category as the permanent staff. Thus, under the rules, they cannot claim parity on all counts as they form a distinct class by themselves. No doubt, though there is no power of compassionate appointment under the regulations, but in exercise of powers under Section 122 of the Cooperative Societies Act, and on the recommendation of the Cane Commissioner, the Government has extended the benefits of compassionate appointment to the regular staff. There is no security of tenure of seasonal staff and though their names can be included in the category A’, yet taking into account the work load, the financial condition of the Union or the Society, they can be refused re-employment in a crushing season while the permanent staff has a secured tenure. Therefore, the discrimination is neither arbitrary nor against the rules. This issue can be examined from a different angle also. Where a regular employee serving a secured tenure and drawing regular salary for years together dies in harness, if he is sole bread winner of the family and leaves it behind in financial destitution without any source of livelihood to make two ends meet, the concept of compassionate appointment was introduced for giving compassionate appointment to lend a helping hand to the destitute family de hors the recruitment service rules. This concept was saved at the altar of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by carving out an exception to achieve the aforesaid object. An employee with such unsecured tenure as a seasonal employee, cannot claim as a matter of right to be extended the benefit of compassionate appointment. In none of the petitions, any specific details of financial destitution or source of income have been disclosed and thus, otherwise also the petitioner cannot claim interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. It is then urged that some dependents of seasonal employees were granted appointment as such the petitioner is also entitled to similar treatment. In none of the petitions, any specific details of financial destitution or source of income have been disclosed and thus, otherwise also the petitioner cannot claim interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. It is then urged that some dependents of seasonal employees were granted appointment as such the petitioner is also entitled to similar treatment. Be it so, Article 14 cannot be pressed into service to perpetuate an illegality already done in other cases, especially after coming to the conclusion that seasonal staff, under the regulations and the orders passed therein, are not entitled for compassionate appointment. Thus, the contention has to be rejected. 9. Lastly, it is urged that the Government Order dated 26.5.2000 has been stayed by the Lucknow Bench of this Court and the order of the Cane Commissioner dated 20.12.2006 has not been approved by the State Government under Section 121, they cannot be given effect to. 10. Mere stay of an order does not ripe any its existence. Further, the stay order has not been passed in rem but is confined to the parties of the writ petition where it was passed. The Court has already rejected the claim of the petitioner and therefore as a necessary consequence the Government Order dated 26.5.2000 has been upheld. So far as the order dated 20.12.2006 passed by the Cane Commissioner is concerned, there is no pleading that the same has been issued in violation of the requirement of Section 121. Further, the said order is based on the clarification of the Government itself, therefore, there is substantial compliance. Thus, this argument also cannot be accepted. 11. For the reasons given above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. ———