JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sunil Hali, J.—Petitioner’s father was appointed as Part-time Tube Well Operator on 26.3.1987 and was paid salary @ Rs. 299/- per month. The salary of the petitioner’ father was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/- with effect from 18.5.1994 and thereafter w.e.f. 1.1.1996 his salary was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590. He continuously worked on the said post without any break. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner’s father was working in clear vacancy even though on temporary basis for more than 19 years. Petitioner’s father is stated to have died on 19.9.2006. After death of his father, petitioner moved an application before the Executive Engineer, Nalkoop Khand, Jaunpur seeking employment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the deceased was not a regular employee of the department and as such, the benefit of the aforesaid rules cannot be given to him. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule 2(2) of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 is quoted below : 2. Definitions.—In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires : (a) “Government servant means a Government servant employed in connection with the affairs of Uttar Pradesh, who— (i) was permanent in such employment; or (ii) though temporary had been regularly appointed in such employment; or (ii) though not regularly appointed, had put in three years continuous service in regular vacancy in such employment.” Sub-rule (ii) of the aforesaid Rules contemplates that a person would be Government servant if he is regularly appointed even temporary. The case of the petitioner is that his father has continuously worked on the aforesaid post right from the year 1987, even though his services had not been regularized in terms of the rules of 1996. His case for regularisation of services was rejected on account of the fact that he was appointed after the cut-off date provided. 4. The stand of the respondent is that only the regular person appointed substantively whose legal heirs are entitled for the benefit of the aforesaid Rules. 5. Rules no where provides that the benefit is to be accorded to the persons who are permanently appointed. 4. The stand of the respondent is that only the regular person appointed substantively whose legal heirs are entitled for the benefit of the aforesaid Rules. 5. Rules no where provides that the benefit is to be accorded to the persons who are permanently appointed. The rules provide that even persons who are appointed on temporary basis and are continuously working are also entitled to the benefit. The intended purpose of the Rules is to provide succor to the family of the deceased who died in harness. It is the continuous relationship of master and servant which gives benefit to the employee seeking such benefit. There must be an element of continuity then the benefit is to be conferred to the person who has been appointed even temporarily. The continuity of a person for a longer period of time clearly gives a message that his services is required by the State. The status of the employee in that behalf could not be relevant. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51469 of 2005 (Vijay Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and others). 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned orders dated 7.2.2007 and 23.2.2007 passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively and respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and appoint him on compassionate ground under the aforesaid Rules of 1974 provided he is eligible under the Rules to hold the post. Let this process be completed within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the respondents. ——————