JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri R.B. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. This is a Special Appeal filed against the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 10th January, 2008 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18449 of 2005; Panmati Devi & another v. State of U.P. and others, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition, the order dated 11th February, 2005 has been quashed, and the respondents-appellants has been directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground as dependent of the deceased employee. 3. The brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding the issue raised on behalf of the appellant are that the father of the petitioner was initially engaged as seasonal collection peon on 17th February, 1976. Thereafter he worked as seasonal collection peon for different periods. 4. From the service book of the father of the petitioner, which has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, it is apparent that from 1st June, 1986 the father of the petitioner has been continuously working as collection peon. The services of large number of collection peons including the father of the petitioner were terminated under order dated 24th March, 2000. Writ Petitions were filed by the large number of collection peons including the father of the petitioner, wherein an interim order was granted. As a result whereof, he continued in service till his death, on 19th May, 2005, while working as collection peon. 5. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel challenging the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 10th January, 2008 has contended that since the father of the petitioner was working as seasonal collection peon, he did not hold any regular post, therefore, dependent of such seasonal collection peons are not entitled for appointment under U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. He submits that merely because the father of the petitioner worked continuously as seasonal collection peon without any break since 1986, it would not improve his case as he was not working against a regular post. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner in reply contends that the working of the father of the petitioner being continuous for decades, it infact cannot be treated as seasonal. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner in reply contends that the working of the father of the petitioner being continuous for decades, it infact cannot be treated as seasonal. Person working throughout the year continuously for decades cannot be termed as seasonal appointees. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate has granted revised pay-scale to the father of the petitioner and has also allowed increments. Therefore, the working of the father of the petitioner cannot be said to be seasonal and learned single Judge has not committed any error in issuing directions that the case of the appellant for appointment on compassionate ground be considered. 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 8. The basic submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the father of the petitioner was not regularly appointed, though he had been worked for decades in a regular pay-scale. From the facts of the present case as brought on record including the service book of the father of the petitioner, we notice that from 1st January, 1986, the working of the father of the petitioner has been continuous throughout the year without any there being a break of even one day. Learned Counsel for the appellant has admitted that sanction for seasonal work is granted on year to year basis. Actual working of the father of the petitioner being continuous for decades for whole year without a break of even a single day, clearly indicates that the nature of the working of the father of the petitioner cannot be said to be seasonal. The State-authorities themselves permitted the father of the petitioner to continue throughout the year for decades. Therefore, it is not open for the appellants to contend that working of the father of the petitioner was seasonal. 9. Thus the facts of the case reveal that the working of the father of the petitioner has been continuous for 19 years and during this period he was paid salary in the regular pay-scale. We are satisfied that such working cannot be treated to be seasonal. In such circumstances, the direction issued by the learned single Judge under the impugned judgment for considering the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be faulted with. The discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge in the facts of the present case is not interfered with. 10. We are satisfied that such working cannot be treated to be seasonal. In such circumstances, the direction issued by the learned single Judge under the impugned judgment for considering the case of petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be faulted with. The discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge in the facts of the present case is not interfered with. 10. We may clarify that we may not be taken as to laying down any proposition that dependents of seasonal employees are entitled for compassionate appointment. 11. In the facts of the present case, we have taken a view that the working of the father of the petitioner cannot be treated to be seasonal. Thus, the learned Single Judge has rightly exercised his discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. This is not a fit case for any interference under the appellate jurisdiction conferred by Chapter-VIII, Rule -5 of the Rules of the High Court. 12. The special appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. ————