JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shabihul Hasnain, J.—Heard Sri M.A. Faridi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Dheeraj Raj Singh holding brief of Sri Vivek Raj Singh appearing for the newly added opposite party No. 2. 2. The case of the petitioner is that his father was working as class IV employee with the opposite party No. 4. He had died in harness on 28.12. 1996. The petitioner applied in his place to be appointed under the Dying in Harness Rule and was given appointment on 11.1.1997. Although the petitioner should have been given regular appointment but the opposite parties appointed him as daily wager. Later on, on 23.9.2000 the services of the petitioner were terminated by the opposite party No. 4. 3. The petitioner filed writ petition No. 6517 (SS) 2000, which was disposed of with the direction to opposite party No. 1 to finalize the appeal, which was pending with the opposite parties. The appeal was pending before the Chancellor under Section 68 of the Universities Act. The Chancellor’s decision on appeal came on 20.6. 2001. The order passed by the Chancellor has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. A perusal of the said order clearly indicates that the Chancellor was of categorical opinion that services of the petitioner was wrongly terminated, because his case fell in separate category while others who were terminated belonged to the category where irregular appointment was made. The petitioner was appointed under the Dying in Harness Rules. Therefore, the Chancellor exonerated him from the purview of general order of termination while giving categorical observation that the case of the petitioner was of different category. The Chancellor directed the then opposite parties Chandrashekhar Azad Agriculture and Technology University, Kanpur, to comply their own orders. The Chancellor’s order is to the effect that since the University authorities had, themselves, redressed the grievance of the petitioner and since they had passed the favourable orders, hence the matter is being dropped at the level of the Chancellor. The petitioner getting the order from the highest authority in the educational field i.e. Chancellor of the Universities was sure to get justice at the university level. It is precise case of the petitioner that since then, despite the order of the Chancellor, he is running from pillar to post and the opposite parties are not paying any heed. 4. The petitioner getting the order from the highest authority in the educational field i.e. Chancellor of the Universities was sure to get justice at the university level. It is precise case of the petitioner that since then, despite the order of the Chancellor, he is running from pillar to post and the opposite parties are not paying any heed. 4. Sri Dheeraj Singh has raised preliminary objection that since at the time of decision of the Chancellor, the petitioner was not employee of U.P. Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Pashu Chikitsa Vigyan Vishwa Vidyalaya Evam Go Anusandhan Sansthan, Mathura, hence no liability can be thrust upon them to absorb the petitioner. He says that after the petitioner deleted the Chandrashekhar Azad University, Kanpur, the writ petition, itself, is not maintainable. This is a basic contention of the opposite party in some and substance. 5. Sri Dheeraj Singh has taken the Court to SCA-2, which is a complete list of daily wagers, who were transferred to his University from Chandrashekhar Azad Agriculture and Technology University, Kanpur. He goes on argue that the name of the petitioner does not figure in this list. As such non inclusion of the name of the petitioner dis-entitled him to pay any claim against U.P. Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Pashu Chikitsa Vigyan Vishwa Vidyalaya Evam Go Anusandhan Sansthan, Mathura as represented by him. Further, he says that when the representation was filed by the petitioner in the year 2006, they had inquired from Chandrashekhar Azad Agriculture and Technology University and reply was given by it that so far the case of the petitioner on merit is concerned, they do not dispute the fact but the petitioner, himself, did not join the duties after being given offer by the University. On these grounds Mr. Dheeraj Singh says that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief from the opposite parties, which are represented by him. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention towards RA-1, which is a Govt. Order through which the liabilities of the transfer were fixed from one University to another. This is minutes of the meeting which was held in the compliance of the G.O. No. 2636/37-2-203-2(15-2)/2002 dated 4.7.2003. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention towards RA-1, which is a Govt. Order through which the liabilities of the transfer were fixed from one University to another. This is minutes of the meeting which was held in the compliance of the G.O. No. 2636/37-2-203-2(15-2)/2002 dated 4.7.2003. The petitioner goes on to show that in the last portion of para-6, it has been stated clearly that it was decided unanimously that Rashtriya Beej Pariyojna, Madhurikund Parikshetra, Mathura- opposite party No. 4 will be transferred to U.P. Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Pashu Chikitsa Vigyan Vishwa Vidyalaya Evam Go Anusandhan Sansthan, Mathura with all the liabilities including all the workmen/ daily wager. Further, it was also resolved that all the machinery etc., on which this research work was going on, shall also be transferred to U.P. Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Pashu Chikitsa Vigyan Vishwa Vidyalaya Evam Go Anusandhan Sansthan, Mathura. A comprehensive reading of RA-1 makes it absolutely clear that transfer with regard to Rashtriya Beej Pariyojna, Madhurikund Parikshetra, Mathura was complete as a unit. The individual items or names of the individual labourer was not required. It appears that SCA-2 does not include the employees working at different places at Rashtriya Beej Pariyojna, Madhurikund Parikshetra, Mathura. These employees were directly working under the University. This unit was situated at distinct place, which was transferred to U.P. Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay University in toto. So far the offer of the Kanpur University is concerned, the petition is loaded with the argument that the Kanpur University did not implement the promises made to the Chancellor and the direction of the Chancellor, itself. The petitioner being a poor person is tired of being tossed between the might of the two Universities, which are pitted against him. 7. It should not be lost sight of the fact that compassionate appointments are different in the sense that the petitioner in that case is a person, whose bread and butter is suddenly snatched away by the cruel hands of death. No wonder, the legislature has named it as compassionate appointment. Naturally, the case of such applicant should be dealt with compassionately. In the present case, instead of compassion, hyper technical objections have been raised by the two Universities and the petitioner, whose father had died in harness, has been sent to wilderness of legal arguments. No wonder, the legislature has named it as compassionate appointment. Naturally, the case of such applicant should be dealt with compassionately. In the present case, instead of compassion, hyper technical objections have been raised by the two Universities and the petitioner, whose father had died in harness, has been sent to wilderness of legal arguments. Accordingly, the Court feels that the orders of the Chancellor dated 20.6.2001 should be immediately complied with by the U.P. Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Pashu Chikitsa Vigyan Vishwa Vidyalaya Evam Go Anusandhan Sansthan, Mathura, say within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before them. 8. The writ petition is, thus, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ————