Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.2. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground under U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant (Dying-in-Harness) Rules, 1974 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules 1974’].3. According to the petitioner, his father, while working as Constable, died on 30.4.1990. thereafter, his mother sent a letter to the department for appointment of her son on compassionate ground on 10.4.1995, to which the Superintendent of Police, Kheri informed the mother of the petitioner that the age of her son as per date of birth 1.3.1981, is minor and when he becomes major, then she may send the application for his appointment under Rules 1974 on compassionate ground on 12.7.1999 but no heed was paid. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application on 19.7.1999 but even then, no action was taken by the opposite parties and as such, he preferred the instant writ petition.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while entertaining the instant writ petition, this Court, vide order dated 20.11.2003, as an interim measure, directed the Government to consider the petitioner’s representation for his appointment under Rules, 1974 by relaxing embargo of five years in accordance with Rules, 1999 (proviso to Rule 5). In compliance thereof, the State Government, vide order dated 11.8.2004, considered the petitioner’s representation and rejected the same inter alia on the grounds that the petitioner has already getting Rs.24,000/- per year and as such, there was no financial necessity in the family of the petitioner.5. The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 has been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants under 1974 Rules are special set of rules, which have been made for providing a source of livelihood, and to give some respite to the members of the deceased government servant’s family at a time when the family is suddenly struck with a calamity where the sole bread earner dies. The overall idea and concept of these rules is to keep the family in main streamline of the society for which economic security and social status is to be provided by the State Government.6. The overall idea and concept of these rules is to keep the family in main streamline of the society for which economic security and social status is to be provided by the State Government.6. Rule 5 of the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 entitles dependent of deceased employee to get suitable employment if he/she fulfils the educational qualification prescribed for the post.7. Admittedly, the petitioner fulfils the requisite qualification. If a dependent of deceased employee fulfils the educational qualification, neither he can be denied appointment nor insistence of fulfilling any other qualification can be made.8. In the instant case, as I have already noted that the petitioner has no means to maintain the family, and, therefore, to tide over the financial crisis on the sudden death of the husband, refusing appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner is wholly unjustified. I am of the view that the financial position of the family of the deceased employee requires such compassionate appointment on the facts of the case.9. Looking to the pathetic condition of the family and financial stress and strain that it has undergone all these years, the impugned orders are not justified and reflects non-application of mind. The opposite parties have not at all taken into account the tremendous difficulties that the petitioner and his family faced upon the death of their head of family way back in the year 1990.10. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned orders are hereby set-aside. The concerned authorities are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment under Rule 5 of Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 and in light of the observations made hereinabove after ignoring the order passed on 11.8.2004 passed on the petitioner’s representation. The authorities shall pass the appropriate orders, expeditiously, say, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.11. With the above observations & directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally._____________