ORAL JUDGMENT VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI 1. Heard Mr. P. H. Pathak learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. R.K. Mishra learned advocate for respondent no. 1 – Municipality. 2. Mr. Pathak learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that fourteen persons have been given back-door entry and their services are regularised. Considering the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the compassionate appointment cannot be given on stop-gap or daily wages or on leave vacancy. Such appointment has to be in class-IV or on regular basis, and if, there are no post available, then the respondent – Municipality has to create a supernumerary post if they are satisfied that the heir has all qualifications for being appointed. 3. We, therefore, direct the respondent – Municipality to treat the appointment of the appellant on regular post, and if, there is no regular post available at present, in that case, the respondent – Municipality shall create supernumerary post and give appointment to the appellant and he shall be paid his salary in the regular pay-scale in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vishwanath Pandey vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2013) 10 SCC p. 545, which squarely applies in the facts of this case and as the respondent-Municipality has found his case fit for appointment and have recommended his case to State authorities. 4. It goes without saying that we have exercised the jurisdiction in very peculiar circumstances because the father of the petitioner passed away on 12.1.1999 and the example given by Mr. Pathak learned advocate for the appellant about the appointment on compassionate ground to others was prior to 1999. The deceased passed away on 12.1.1999, and since then, the appellant has been working as daily wager, and therefore, pursuant to the Government Resolution, the appellant shall be continued and looking to the fact that he is working since last 12 years with respondent – Municipality, the respondent-Municipality is directed to move the Director of Municipalities for regularising his services as we have already directed the respondent – Municipality to create the post and till the post is created and regular vacancy is available, the appellant shall be continued on supernumerary post. As we have already directed by way of mandamus to the respondent – Municipality to appoint the appellant on supernumerary post till the Government is moved and get his post regularised, the State Government shall not take a stand that there is no regular vacancy. This is an exceptional case and the State Government may consider the case of the appellant sympathetically as his case is of 1999 and will not governed by new G.R. which is later in time. 5. Mr. Pathak learned advocate for the appellant has made a statement at the Bar that he shall not file any further litigation claiming back-wages or the difference in salary from 1999 to the date he is given regular posting or claim seniority over others. We make it clear that his appointment on compassionate ground is under the circumstances stated above. 6. In the result, this appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The impugned judgment and order dated 9.10.2012 is modified to the aforesaid extent and this order has been passed in peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and shall not be treated as precedent. It goes without saying that the State Government shall not stop the grant for payment of salary of the appellant and shall release the grant for the salary of the appellant to the respondent-Municipality. 7. As the main LPA is disposed, Civil Application No. 9937/2013 stands disposed of accordingly.