JUDGMENT Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Vijay Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and perused the record. 2. Facts, in brief of the present case are that the petitioner’s father, who was working on the post of Lekhpal in tehsil Maharajganj, District Raebareli died on 18.4.1983 during the tenure of his service leaving behind the petitioner, widow wife and four minor daughters. 3. At the time of death of his father, petitioner was minor and immediately after attaining the age of majority, he submitted an application/representation before the District Magistrate, Raebareli on 23.7.2002 (Annexure 1) requesting that his case may be considered for compassionate appointment. By order dated 29.5.2003 (Annexure 4) opposite party No. 1 communicated to the District Magistrate, Raebareli/opposite party No. 2 that the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment under U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in harness Rules, 1974 (herein after referred to as Rules, 1974') has been rejected on the ground of delay. Again in this regard an order/letter dated 9.12.2009 (Annexure 3) send by opposite party No. 1 to opposite party No. 2. Aggrieved by the said orders, present writ petition has been filed before this Court. 4. Sri Vijay Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned orders submits that the action on the part of respondents thereby rejecting the petitioner’s application on the ground of delay, is contrary to law as laid down by this Court in the case Subhash Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(10) ADJ 289 (DB). 5. He further submits that as per Rules, 1974 and law as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, the authorities concerned should not reject the petitioner’s application on the ground of delay but they have to consider the same on merit whether the petitioner is entitled to get the compassionate appointment under the Rules 1974 or not which is mandatory requirement as per law as the said procedure has not been followed, hence the impugned orders under challenge are arbitrary in nature, contrary to law, liable to be set aside. 6. 6. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, while defending the impugned orders submits that in the present case father of the petitioner died on 18.4.1983, thereafter he moved and application for considering his case for compassionate appointment under Rules 1974, on 23.7.2002 so keeping in view the Rule 6(c) of the Rule 1974 there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders so the present writ petition liable to be dismissed. The said rules are quoted as under : “(6) Contents of application for employment.—An application for appointment under these rules shall be addressed to the appointing authority in respect of the post which appointment is sought but it shall be sent to the Head of Office where the deceased Government servant was serving prior to his death. The application shall, inter alia, contain the following information: (a) the date of the death of the deceased Government servant the department in which he was working and the post which he was holding prior to his death; (b) names, age and other details pertaining to all the members of the family of deceased, particularly about their marriage, employment and income; (c) details of the financial condition of the family; and (d) the educational and other qualifications, if any, of the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Before adjudicating and deciding the controversy involved in the present case, it will be appropriate to go through the provisions as provided under Rules 5 and Rule 8 of the Rules 1974 quoted as under : “5. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Before adjudicating and deciding the controversy involved in the present case, it will be appropriate to go through the provisions as provided under Rules 5 and Rule 8 of the Rules 1974 quoted as under : “5. Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased.—(1) In case a Government servant dies in harness after the commencement of these rules and the spouse of the deceased Government servant is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government, one member of his family who is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government shall, on making an application for the purposes, be given a suitable employment in Government service on a post except the post which is within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules if such person— (I) fulfils the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, (ii)is otherwise qualified for Government service, and, (iii)makes the application for employment within five years from the date of the death of the Government servant: Provided that where the State Government is satisfied that the time-limit fixed for making the application for employment causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may dispense with or relax the requirement as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. (2) As far as possible, such an employment should be given in the same department in which the deceased Government servant was employed prior to his death. (3) Each appointment under sub-rule (1) should be under the condition that the person appointed under sub-rule (1) shall upkeep those other family members of the deceased Government servant who are incapable for their own maintenance and were dependant of the above said deceased Government servant immediately before his death. 8. Relaxation from age and other requirements.—(1) The candidate seeking appointment under these rules must not be less than 18 years at the time of appointment. 8. Relaxation from age and other requirements.—(1) The candidate seeking appointment under these rules must not be less than 18 years at the time of appointment. (2) The procedural requirements for selection; such as written test or interview by a selection committee or any other authority, shall be dispensed with, but it shall be open to the appointing authority to interview the candidate in order to satisfy itself that the candidate will be able to maintain the minimum standards work and efficiency expected on the post. (3) An appointment under these rules shall be made against an existing vacancy only.” 9. Further, this Court in the case of Subhash Yadav (Supra) after taking into consideration the Rules 1974 and another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vivek Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, 2010 (7) ADJ 1 , has held as under : “In our opinion, such a blanket reason without considering anything else would not be in conformity with the power so conferred on the respondents. This issue has been extensively dealt with by us in the case of Vivek Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, 2010 (7) ADJ 1 . The reliance placed by the learned single Judge on the case of State of Haryana v. Rani Devi, would also not come in the way of the appellant inasmuch as in paragraph No. 5 of the said judgment, the Apex Court has categorically held that in many cases application for appointment on compassionate grounds are being made even after 10 - 15 years because on the death of the employee, the applicant was a minor and could not have been appointed. The Apex Court held that such an appointment cannot be made on sympathetic considerations when the regulations framed do not cover or contemplate such appointments. The Apex Court, however, further in the same paragraph has went on to hold that any such rights for appointment on compassionate basis flows on the basis of Rules, Regulations or some administrative order issued in the form of a resolution or office memorandum. The Court, however, cautioned that such Rules and Regulations should not be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court, however, cautioned that such Rules and Regulations should not be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The claim of compassionate appointment in the case of Rani Devi (supra) was, however, rejected mainly on the ground that the deceased employee was a work-charge appointee and his appointment was in the nature of casual/ad hoc employee which was not covered under any scheme for compassionate appointment. We have considered the aforesaid judgment and we find that the same is clearly distinguishable and on the contrary the same will have to be construed to have allowed to make compassionate appointments on the basis of the existing Rules. In the instant case, the Rules referred to herein above empower the State Government to relax the time period and which power has to be exercised reasonably and in accordance with the provisions contained therein. This aspect has been explained by us in the case of Vivek Yadav (supra) and, therefore, the judgment in the case of Rani Devi (supra) does not in any way dilute the impact of the 1974 Rules referred to herein above. The authorities, therefore, do not have to blind foldedly reject the application if it has been moved after 5 years. They have to apply their mind rationally and the discretion has to be exercised keeping in view the other factors relating to the case. A perusal of the same would, therefore, leave no room for doubt that the appellant had explained his pecuniary conditions before the State Government and the authorities as also before the learned single Judge which has not been taken notice of at all. The orders by the authorities have been passed merely on the ground of limitation alone.” 10. Admittedly the position in the present case that the father of the petitioner died on 18.4.1993, and after attaining the age of majority on 23.7.2002, for the first time petitioner moved an application for considering his case for compassionate appointment, a copy of the said application is annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. From the perusal of the same, it transpires that petitioner’s family consisting of himself, his mother and four daughters who depend on the father, died on 18.4.1983. 11. Moreover, in the said application, it is also stated that besides the family pension there is no other source to earn the livelihood of the deceased family. From the perusal of the same, it transpires that petitioner’s family consisting of himself, his mother and four daughters who depend on the father, died on 18.4.1983. 11. Moreover, in the said application, it is also stated that besides the family pension there is no other source to earn the livelihood of the deceased family. Keeping in view the said factual backgrounds, petitioner has made a request by submitting an application after attaining the age of majority that keeping in view his qualification i.e. intermediate he may be given appointment on compassionate ground. 12. Further employment in public service, as a rule, can be made strictly based on open competition and merit. Any other basis will defeat the Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and is fraught with chances of malpractice and nepotism. However, to this general rule there have been exceptions in order to meet the necessity of confirming to larger ideals of the Stat. Incorporating appropriate provisions in the Constitution has advanced some of these ideals, yet some have to be carved out by executive instructions. One such ideal is discernible in the executive orders providing for a scheme for compassionate appointments for wards of deceased or disabled public servants, where death occurs in harness or disability arises during service. 13. The object of the Scheme is to grant appointment on compassionate grounds to a dependent family member of a Government servant dying in harness thereby leaving his family in penury and without means of livelihood, to relieve the family of the Government servant concerned from financial destitution and to held it to get over the emergency. 14. Compassionate appointment is to save the family from financial destitution. It thus bring upon a duty on the appointing authority to enquire about the financial strength of the family seeking employment assistance. Unless the appointing authority is satisfied about the financial position of the family and comes to a conscious decision that the family need the assistance, no such appointment could be offered. 15. Were after proper inquiry into the financial conditions of the family of the deceased employee if it is considered that the family is able to tide over the crisis without such assistance, the law is that such considered decision of the authorities could not be faulted. 15. Were after proper inquiry into the financial conditions of the family of the deceased employee if it is considered that the family is able to tide over the crisis without such assistance, the law is that such considered decision of the authorities could not be faulted. However, where such enquiry was wanting and the decision of the authority is not supported with cogent reasoning, the Courts may be required to intervene. 16. Accordingly, it can be summarized that the authority competent to consider applications for compassionate appointment cannot take into his consideration extraneous materials to deny compassionate appointment. His consideration on the pecuniary circumstances shall be objective and it requires proper evaluation of financial circumstances of the family to deny compassionate appointment. Pecuniary circumstances that barely meet” animal existence” cannot be taken to be enough so as to deny compassionate appointment if the ward of the deceased employee is otherwise within the zone of consideration. 17. Further in view the facts as stated in the application moved by the petitioner (Annexure 1) for considering his case for compassionate appointment, objection taken by learned State Counsel that the same is not in accordance with the provisions as provided under Rule 6 of Rules 1974, is no correct submissions, rather contrary to aims and object to give compassionate appointment for which Rules 1974 have been framed. 18. As such the impugned orders dated 9.12.2009 (Annexure 3) and 29.5.2003 (Annexure 4) by which the application moved by the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected only on the ground of delay and his case has not been considered on merit is in violation of law as laid down by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Subhash Yadav (Supra) and Vivek Yadav (Supra). 19. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 9.12.2009 (Annexure 3) and 29.5.2003 (Annexure 4) passed by opposite party No. 1 are set aside and the petitioner are directed to make a fresh representation to opposite party No. 2/District Magistrate, Raebareli within a period of two weeks from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order annexing all the relevant documents in respect to the grievance which has been raised by him in the present case alongwith self addressed envelope, after receiving the same opposite party No. 2 shall consider and dispose of by way of speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law on the observation made herein above within a further period of four weeks thereafter and communicate the same to the petitioner. —————