JUDGMENT Per: U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners seek a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 08.08.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original Application no.1606 of 2009 Smt. Sumitra vs. Union of India & others. 2. The applicant (respondent herein) moved an application before the Tribunal challenging the order dated 30.09.2010 passed by the petitioner-employer. The applicant prayed for giving direction to the department to give compassionate appointment on a suitable post, for which, she is eligible and qualified. 3. The facts of the case, as encapsulated by the Tribunal, are reproduced herein below for convenience: “That the husband of the applicant namely Shri Shyam Singh was an employee of the organization as a Halwai and he died in harness on 30.12.2002. After the death, the husband of the applicant left his wife, four unmarried daughters, two of whom are of marriageable age. That all the daughters are studying in different classes and the eldest daughter is studying in graduation. The income of husband of the applicant was the only source of livelihood and no other member of the family is earning and after the death of the applicant the entire family became indigent and living in penury. On 24.04.2003, applicant submitted representation before the respondents requesting in order to give appointment to the applicant on any suitable post on compassionate grounds. That on verification by the respondents the condition of the applicant was found indigent and they were also of the opinion that the applicant require compassionate appointment and the case of the applicant was considered in its meeting on 27.04.2004 but appointment could not be given to the applicant due to paucity of vacancies and vide letter dated 31.05.2004 respondents informed the applicant that the case of the applicant shall be considered again as and when vacancy arises, since then applicant has been running from pillar to post and requesting the authorities to appoint her on any suitable post. The matter of compassionate appointment was again considered by the respondents and the applicant was held eligible for appointment but even then she had not been given appointment. The matter of compassionate appointment was again considered by the respondents and the applicant was held eligible for appointment but even then she had not been given appointment. It has been alleged by the respondents that in terms of Clause 3.7.9 of 6th Pay Commission, all the class-IV post has been upgraded to Group-C. The minimum educational qualification is High School pass or ITI or equivalent thereof. The husband of the applicant died on 30.12.2002 and during this period permissible time for compassionate appointment has expired. That the case of the applicant was not considered for want of limitation and educational qualification. The case of the applicant was recommended to respondent no.1 by the respondent no.2 for granting exemption so that the applicant may be given appointment but the exemption has not been considered as yet and sufficient time had already expired. Vide letter dated 23.03.2009, respondent no.2 informed the applicant that more than five years had elapsed and the applicant was found eligible but the limitation was not exempted by the respondent no.1. That there was no fault of the applicant in lapse of time and the respondents consider the case of the applicant fit vide letter dated 23.03.2009 but due to delay the appointment has not been given. The candidature of the applicant cannot be rejected merely on the ground that more than five years had elapsed. That the minimum period of five years prescribed by the committee is highly irrational and unreasonable, in the circumstances that the case of the applicant was considered penurious. The matter of compassionate appointment should not be kept on the whims of respondents and the limitation of five years is illegal.” 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after considering the documents brought on record, the Tribunal passed the following order: “11. OA is allowed. Order dated 30.09.2010 (Annexure A-1) is quashed and respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment in view of the Office Memorandum issued by the DOPT (Annexure-E) dated 11.12.2009 regarding non-possessing minimum educational qualification. OA is allowed. Order dated 30.09.2010 (Annexure A-1) is quashed and respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment in view of the Office Memorandum issued by the DOPT (Annexure-E) dated 11.12.2009 regarding non-possessing minimum educational qualification. Moreover, the case of the applicant will not be rejected on the ground that her case had already been considered thrice and after three years the case cannot be kept open in view of the Office memorandum of DOPT or the case of the applicant cannot be considered beyond the period of five years after the death of the husband. I have granted the relaxation of five years in the case of the applicant, as the same is genuine and penurious and the Office memorandum of DOPT regarding consideration beyond three years is not applicable in the case of the applicant in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment as per direction made in the body of the judgment and in view of the directions and guidelines of Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is produced before them. The applicant shall produce the copy of this order before the respondents at the earliest. No Costs.” 5. It is an admitted fact that the husband of the applicant was an employee of the petitioner’s organization and he died in harness on 30.12.2002 leaving behind his wife and four unmarried daughters. All the four unmarried daughters were studying and two of them were of marriageable age. The applicant filed the application for compassionate appointment on 24.04.2003. The deceased was the only earning member in the family. The entire family depended upon the income of the deceased. After the death of the deceased, the entire family is living in penury. The case of the applicant was considered fit and eligible by the Committee constituted to consider the request for appointment on compassionate grounds. The Committee prepared a list of 5 candidates in which the applicant stood at serial no.4, but the compassionate appointment could not be given for want of vacancies. When the applicant’s name figured at sl. no.4, the compassionate appointment was given to the candidates who were placed at serial no.1 & 2. The Committee prepared a list of 5 candidates in which the applicant stood at serial no.4, but the compassionate appointment could not be given for want of vacancies. When the applicant’s name figured at sl. no.4, the compassionate appointment was given to the candidates who were placed at serial no.1 & 2. The applicant’s name was again considered for compassionate appointment in the year 2007, but, by then also, the vacancies were not available. This fact is under no dispute that the Committee, on different dates, recommended the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground. When the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission were received, all the posts of Group-D were replaced by that of Group-C. For Group-C posts, the minimum qualification was Class X or ITI or equivalent. In this process, the case of the applicant became 5 years old. The matter was recommended to the employer for giving relaxation, but no relaxation was granted by the employer, inasmuch as, the applicant did not possess the requisite qualification. The application of the applicant for compassionate appointment was rejected. 6. The Office Memorandum dated 11.12.2009 issued by the DoPT (Annexure-E to the counter affidavit) says, among other things, that the Government may consider recruiting persons not immediately meeting the minimum educational standards in exceptional circumstances. The Government may engage such appointee as trainee, who may be given regular Pay Bands and Grade Pay only on acquiring the minimum qualification prescribed under the recruitment rules. In the instant case, a reasonable time may be given to the applicant to acquire the minimum qualification and, till then, she may be appointed as trainee. She desperately needs some benevolence of the employer of her late husband to manage two square meals for herself and her daughters. This is apart from the fact that the minimum educational qualification, in the case of the applicant, cannot have retrospective effect. The misery of the applicant (respondent herein) was compounded by the circumstances, which were not in her hands. The circumstances were beyond her control. Her husband died leaving behind her and four daughters. Thereafter, inspite of the fact that she moved an application for compassionate appointment at the earliest, the schemes and vacancies came in her way. Then Group-D posts were converted into Group-C post and a concept of minimum qualification was introduced. In the process, five years elapsed. Her husband died leaving behind her and four daughters. Thereafter, inspite of the fact that she moved an application for compassionate appointment at the earliest, the schemes and vacancies came in her way. Then Group-D posts were converted into Group-C post and a concept of minimum qualification was introduced. In the process, five years elapsed. Nothing was in the hands of the applicant. The circumstances were so compounded that she was unable to get the compassionate appointment. The department could have relaxed the minimum educational qualification, but it is sitting over the matter citing technical reasons, thus, frustrating the very purpose of Dying-in-Harness Rules. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zila Parished, Nagpur vs. G. Ananta Rajeswa Rao, 1993 (8) SLR 420, has held that an appointment on compassionate ground to a son, daughter or widow to assist the family to relieve economic distress by sudden demise in harness of government employee is valid. It is not on the ground of descent simpliciter, but exceptional circumstance for the ground mentioned. Although in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Mrs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar & another, 1994 (2) SLR 1, hon’ble Apex Court observed that the High Courts and the Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations, inasmuch as, yielding to instinct will tend to ignore the cold logic of law. It should be remembered “law is the embodiment of all wisdom”. Justice according to law is a principle as old as the hills. The Courts are to administer law as they find it, however, inconvenient it may be. This logic also helps the respondent to obtain a compassionate appointment in the instant case. 8. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & others, 1994 (2) SLR 677, it was held that the object behind compassionate employment is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner. 9. In Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hakim Singh, 1998(1) SCT 511, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the rule of appointment to public service is that they should be on merits and through open invitation. It is the normal route through one could into a public employment. However, as every rule can have exceptions, there are a few exceptions to the said rule also which have been evolved to meet certain contingencies. It is the normal route through one could into a public employment. However, as every rule can have exceptions, there are a few exceptions to the said rule also which have been evolved to meet certain contingencies. As per one such exception relief is provided to the bereaved family of a deceased employee by accommodating one of his dependents in a vacancy. The object is to give succour to the family which has been suddenly plunged into penury due to the untimely death of its sole breadwinner. It is to give succour to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befallen the dependents on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning member. 10. In Director of Education (Secondary) & another vs. Pushpendra Kumar & others, 1999 (1) SLJ 32 also, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the object underlying a provision of grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crises resulting due to death of the bread earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Such a provision makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment on the post by following a particular procedure. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Naresh Tanwar and another, 1996 (2) SLR 11, has held that the very object of appointment of dependent of deceased-employee who died in harness is to relieve immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family and such consideration cannot be kept binding for years. In the instant case, the employer has kept the matter pending for years in such a way, citing one reason or other, that the dependents of the deceased-employee must have been crying over the apathy shown to them by a responsible department of a Welfare State! What an irony it is! In the instant case, the employer has kept the matter pending for years in such a way, citing one reason or other, that the dependents of the deceased-employee must have been crying over the apathy shown to them by a responsible department of a Welfare State! What an irony it is! 12. Besides the above, learned Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the case of the applicant is fit for re-consideration for giving compassionate appointment. If certain technicalities come in the way in giving her compassionate appointment, the same can be relaxed, for, the petitioners have been armed with adequate powers to relax the same. Procedural rules are subservient to the cause of justice. 13. This Court is in complete agreement with the conclusion arrived at by learned Tribunal, as also the reasons fortifying such conclusion. No contrary view is possible to be taken in the circumstances enumerated hereinabove. 14. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.