JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashok Pal Singh, J.—Heard Sri U.S.Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants-State and Smt. Susheela Singh, respondent, in person and perused the records. 2. This intra Court appeal arises out of the Judgment and order dated 23.2.1998 passed by learned Single Judge in the writ petition preferred by the respondent for providing all benefits of service of her husband, late Sri Gulab Singh to her and also to give her appointment on compassionate ground on Class-IV post. 3. The record reveals that the respondent’s husband had died in-harness while serving as Constable in G.R.P., Kanpur Central Railway. Smt. Susheela Singh, present respondent, was an accused in the murder of her husband late Gulab Singh and a trial is pending before the concerned sessions Court. This fact appears to have not been brought into the notice of writ Court at the time when impugned order had been passed. 4. During pendency of the instant appeal, it was noticed that the record of aforesaid sessions trial had been summoned by the writ Court and after final decision in the writ petition, the same was attached with the record of the writ petition and consigned to the Record Room by the official concerned who died during his service period. In the circumstances, the Court vide its order dated 20.11.2013 observed that entire progress of the trial had been held up due to the mistake committed by the deceased employee. However, because of the said employee being no more, the Court confined itself for directing the record of the sessions trial in the High Court to be remitted to the District Judge concerned and further directing him to get the proceedings of the trial concluded. Again vide order dated 22.1.2014 a direction was issued to the District Judge concerned to instruct the Court in which the sessions trial was pending to conclude the trial as early as possible within three months from the date of the order passed. 5. We have been informed by the parties concerned that aforesaid sessions trial has still not been concluded. 6. This fact is not disputed between the parties that entire service benefits of her late husband, Gulab Singh have been received by the respondent during the pendency of the instant appeal. The only controversial issue left between the parties for decision is with regard to entitlement of appointment of the respondent on compassionate ground. 7. 6. This fact is not disputed between the parties that entire service benefits of her late husband, Gulab Singh have been received by the respondent during the pendency of the instant appeal. The only controversial issue left between the parties for decision is with regard to entitlement of appointment of the respondent on compassionate ground. 7. Submission of learned Standing Counsel is that the impugned order directing for compassionate appointment to be given to the respondent on Class IV post was passed nearly 15 years ago and that respondent who is an old lady is now more than 50 years old. She is also facing trial on charge of the murder of her own husband in whose place she has sought compassionate appointment. The said trial is still pending and has not been concluded. Under these circumstances, providing compassionate appointment to the respondent would not be legally justified and also would be against the public policy. 8. It appears that considering the gravity of the legal implication now arising after more than 15 years of passing of the impugned order, the respondent Smt. Susheela Singh appearing in person is also not willing to be appointed on compassionate ground. In this regard, she has moved a supplementary-affidavit on 21.8.2014 wherein para 2 it has been submitted by her that in view of the impugned order passed by learned single Judge, she had moved an application to the appellants for her son, Raghuvendrra Pratap Singh be considered for appointment on compassionate ground, but, the said application was rejected by the Superintendent of Police, Railway, Allahabad vide his order dated 14.5.2012(appended as Annexure 1 to the aforesaid supplementary-affidavit) on the grounds that till the case of the respondent is not decided by the Court, her son cannot be considered for appointment on compassionate ground and that such an application for her son ought to have been moved within a period of five years of death of the deceased employee. 9. Inviting the attention of this Court towards the averments made in para 2 and 3 of the writ petition, it has also been submitted by respondent that her son Raghuvendra Pratap Singh was aged about 5 years at the time when her husband had died on 4.5.1994 and she had filed her writ petition. 9. Inviting the attention of this Court towards the averments made in para 2 and 3 of the writ petition, it has also been submitted by respondent that her son Raghuvendra Pratap Singh was aged about 5 years at the time when her husband had died on 4.5.1994 and she had filed her writ petition. Because of his minority, no such application could have been moved or considered at that time for appointment of Raghuvendra Pratap Singh on compassionate ground. As such, the aforesaid order dated 14.5.2012 passed by Superintendent of Police, Railway, Allahabad too is not based on correct appreciation of facts and law. It is stated that since her family is still in acute financial crisis and living in cold penury and her son Raghuvendra Pratap Singh, has now attained the age of majority, he may be considered for appointment on compassionate ground as now she cannot be considered for such appointment. 10. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, it is quite clear to us that the impugned order was passed by the writ Court on sympathetic and humanitarian grounds in ignorance of the pendency of the criminal case against the respondent about murder of her own husband. Such an appointment would not only be legally not sustainable but would also be against public policy so long as the respondent is not acquitted in the trial. Moreover, now after 15 years of the passing of the impugned order and considering the fact that respondent has now reached an age of 50 years it appears to us that the writ petition filed by the respondent has lost its efficacy and in this view the impugned order deserves to be set aside. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances, we feel that the matter still needs a sympathetic and humanitarian consideration for which a direction needs to given to the respondents to consider the respondent’s son for compassionate appointment in place of respondent for the reason of his becoming now eligible and the family of respondent still living in acute financial crisis and also for the reason that Smt. Susheela Singh who had been considered for appointment on compassionate ground could not be appointed due to criminal case. The next dependent of the deceased employee may be considered by the appellants for appointment on compassionate grounds. 11. The next dependent of the deceased employee may be considered by the appellants for appointment on compassionate grounds. 11. In view of above, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with a direction to the appellants to consider the case of respondent’s son, Raghuvendra Pratap Singh for appointment on compassionate ground in place of respondent on account of deceased Gulab Singh dying in harness. It will be open for the respondent to get an appropriate application moved in this regard to the appellants within six weeks of this order. In case such an application is moved the same shall be considered and decided by the appellants within next two months by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, needless to say that order shall be passed keeping the object and spirit of compassionate appointment in mind in the light of directions given herein above. 12. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the appeal is allowed subject to aforesaid directions. No order as to costs. —————