JUDGMENT : SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. 1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed judgment and order dated 16.09.2002 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Original Applications (hereinafter referred to as "O.A.") No. 648 of 2001 and 187 of 1998, both having been filed by Ravindra Kumar (petitioner), hence this writ petition. 2. Facts in brief giving rise to present writ petition are as under. 3. Petitioner's elder brother, Mahendra Prasad, was working as Data Entry Operator in the Office of Director, Census, U.P., Lucknow and died in harness. Petitioner on compassionate basis was given appointment on temporary basis for a period of two years w.e.f. 02.12.1992, vide appointment order dated 02.12.1992, issued by Deputy Director (Health Department) in the Office of Director, Census, U.P., Lucknow. It was also mentioned in the appointment letter that within a period of two years, petitioner will have to attain proficiency in Hindi Typing with 25 words per minute or in English Typing with 30 words per minute, failing which, his services would be liable for termination. 4. No typing test was conducted in the previous two years hence there was no occasion for petitioner to get his proficiency tested. On 09.02.1995, a typing test was conducted in which petitioner was directed to appear vide letter dated 03.02.1995 in which petitioner could not qualify. Another typing test was conducted on 30.11.1995 and it was communicated to petitioner vide letter dated 25.08.1995. Vide letter dated 16.10.1996, petitioner was informed that he did not qualify typing test within a period of two years from the date of he is given further opportunity. Again vide letter dated 26.04.2001, petitioner was informed that he was not able to pass typing test and is being given one more chance to clear the same. On 04.06.2001, petitioner was informed that Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as "SSC") would hold typing test in the last week of July, 2001. Petitioner was directed to apply for said test. On 13.09.2001, petitioner was informed that SSC is holding a typing test in the last week of October, 2001 and he was directed to apply for the said test. Petitioner did not apply for appearing in test, to be conducted by SSC. Petitioner was directed to apply for said test. On 13.09.2001, petitioner was informed that SSC is holding a typing test in the last week of October, 2001 and he was directed to apply for the said test. Petitioner did not apply for appearing in test, to be conducted by SSC. In the test conducted prior to July, 2001, he was not found to have attained requisite standard. 5. Vide order dated 09.11.2001, Director, Census Operation, U.P., Lucknow in purported exercise of power under Rule 5(1) of Central Civil Temporary Service Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1965") terminated petitioner w.e.f. the date of expiry of period of one month from the date of service of notice upon him. Aforesaid letter was served upon petitioner on 11.11.2001. This order of termination was challenged in O.A. No. 648 of 2001. 6. Earlier thereto, petitioner was not being given annual increment hence he had filed O.A. No. 187 of 1998 which was pending. 7. Tribunal clubbed both the matters and has decided vide impugned judgment holding that petitioner having failed to attain proficiency in typing test, which was condition of his appointment, has rightly been terminated and he is also not entitled for annual increments. 8. Date of birth of petitioner is 10.07.1957 and, therefore, he would have completed the age of 45 years on 10.07.2002. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that under Rules framed under proviso to Article 309, i.e., "Office of Registrar General and Ex officio, Census Commissioner for India and Offices of Directors of Census Operations, States and Union Territories (LDC/Typist) Recruitment Rules, 1984" (hereinafter referred to as "Recruitment Rules, 1984"), appointment on the post of LDC is 90% by direct recruitment and 10% by promotion. The essential qualifications for Class III posts mentioned in the said Rules, in column 8 of Schedule, read as under:" "Essential (1) Matriculation or equivalent. The essential qualifications for Class III posts mentioned in the said Rules, in column 8 of Schedule, read as under:" "Essential (1) Matriculation or equivalent. (2) Minimum speed of 30 words per minute in typewriting (in English) provided that; (a) a person not possessing the said qualification in typewriting may be appointed subject to the condition that he will not be eligible to draw increments in the prescribed pay scale or for quasi permanency or for confirmation in the grade till he acquires the minimum speed of 30 words per minute in typewriting (in English); and (b) a physically handicapped person, who is otherwise qualified to hold a clerical post, but does not possess the said qualification in typewriting (in English) may be appointed subject to the condition that the Medical Board attached to the special Employment Exchange for the handicapped, or where there is no such board, a Civil Surgeon, certifies that the said handicapped person is not a fit condition to be able to type." (emphasis added) 10. Rule 6 confers power of relaxation upon Central Government and reads as under:" "6. Power to relax - Where the Central Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing relax any of the provisions of these rules with respect to any class or category of persons." (emphasis added) 11. In exercise of power under Rule 6 of Rules, 1984 an Office Memorandum dated 29.09.1992 was has been issued by Government of India. Para 11 of said Office Memorandum provides that instructions contained in the said office memorandum will come into force w.e.f. 01.01.1990. Para 2(1) provides the category of persons to whom instructions of Office Memorandum dated 29.09.1992 are applicable and title of said office memorandum is "Grant of exemption to LDCs in the Attached and Subordinate Offices from passing Typing Test". Para 2(2) provides circumstances when exemption may be allowed. Relevant paragraphs 2(1) and (2) are reproduced as under :- 2.(1) To whom applicable: Persons appointed as Lower Division Clerks to posts which do not belong to Central Secretariat Clerical Service whether such appointment is by promotion from Group 'D' or by direct recruitment through Staff Selection Commission or otherwise or by any other methods including appointment on compassionate grounds or on ad hoc basis. (2) When exemption may be allowed: (a) If above 45 years of age on the date of their appointment may be granted exemption from the date of their appointment. (b) If between the age of 35 years and 45 years at the time of appointment may be granted exemption on attaining the age of 45 years. (c) If below 35 years of age on the date of appointment may be given exemption after 10 years of service as Lower Division Clerk provided they have made two genuine attempts to pass the typing test; otherwise they may be granted exemption after attaining the age of 45 years. (d) Those Lower Division Clerks who have made two genuine attempts for passing the typing test prior to the issue of this O.M. But have not completed 8 year's service as Lower Division Clerk may be granted exemption from passing the typing test after completion of 8 years of service or on attaining the age of 45 years whichever is earlier." (emphasis added) 12. Petitioner at the time of his appointment was above 35 years and after serving for almost 9 years, he was terminated vide order dated 09.11.2001 when he was going to complete 45 years on 10.07.2002. Had petitioner would have completed 45 years, he would have been entitled for exemption under para 2(2)(e) of office memorandum dated 29.09.1992 but respondents passed impugned order of termination before his completion of 45 years hence petitioner was held not entitled for exemption under aforesaid office memorandum dated 29.09.1992 from the requirement of passing typing test. 13. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was singled out for the purpose of termination before attaining the age of 45 years inasmuch as there are other persons who were appointed subject to condition of passing of typing test and were not terminated. They were retained in service and recommended for relaxation from requirement of typing test by referring to paragraphs 2(1) and 2(2)(c) of Office Memorandum dated 29.09.1992. 14. They were retained in service and recommended for relaxation from requirement of typing test by referring to paragraphs 2(1) and 2(2)(c) of Office Memorandum dated 29.09.1992. 14. In this regard, learned counsel for petitioner placed before us letter dated 15.03.2012 sent by Deputy Director (Administration) from the office of Directorate of Census Operations, U.P., Lucknow to Deputy Director in the Office of Director General (Census), filed as Annexure RA4 to rejoinder affidavit and para 3 thereof reads as under: 3- vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qDr deZpkfj;ksa dk fooj.k fuEuor gS%& dz0la0 deZpkjh dk uke o in loZJh tUe frfFk vk;q o"kZ esa 1 Jherh 'kju nsoh] voj oxZ fyfid lsok fuo`Rr gks pqdh gSA - 2 jfoUnz dqekj] voj oxZ fyfid lsok lekIr dj nh xbZ FkhA - 3 unjhe 'kQh] voj oxZ fyfid 15-05-1963 49 o"kZ 4 Jherh eerk jkuh 'kqDyk] voj oxZ fyfid 30-09-1965 46 o"kZ 5 mej njkt vgen] voj oxZ fyfid 15-07-1972 40 o"kZ 6 jfo flag] lgk;d ladyudrkZ 03-07-1973 39 o"kZ 7 v'kksd dqekj xqIrk] lgk;d ladyudrkZ 01-09-1969 42 o"kZ 8 vt; flag Hkkjrh] lgk;d ladyudrkZ 13-02-1975 37 o"kZ 9 dkejku t+dh] lgk;d ladyudrkZ 12-08-1984 27 o"kZ ;g Hkh Li"V djuk gS fd mDr vuqdEik dds vk/kkj ij lgk;d ladyudrkZ ,oa voj oxZ fyfid inksa ij dk;Zjr mDr deZpkfj;ksa esa ls dze la[;k 1 ij vafdr deZpkjh lsokfuo`Rr gks pqdh gS] dze la[;k 2 ij vafdr deZpkjh dh lsok igys gh lekIr dj nh xbZ FkhA dze la[;k 3 ,oa 4 ij vafdr deZpkjh 45 o"kZ dh vk;q iw.kZ dj pqds gSA Hkkjr ljdkj ds dkfeZd ,oa izf'k{k.k ea=ky; ds Kki fnuakd 29-09-1992 ds iSjk 2 2 1 ds izko/kkuksa ds vqulkj bUgsa Vad.k ijh{kk ls NwV iznku dh tk ldrh gSA vU; lHkh deZpkjh dze la[;k 9 dks NksM+dj tks 35 o"kZ ls vf/kd vk;q ds gks pqds gS mUgsa Hkh mDr Kki fnuakd 29-09-1992 ds iSjk 2 2 lh ds izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj 45 o"kZ dh vk;q iw.kz djus ij Vad.k ijh{kk ls NwV iznku fd;k tk ldrk gSA "3. Details of employees appointed on compassionate ground are as follows: Sl. No. Name of employee and designation Date of birth Age (In years) 1. Smt. Sharan Devi, Lower Division Clerk Has retired 2. Ravindra Kumar, Lower Division Clerk (Petitioner) Services had been terminated 3. Nadeem Shafi, Lower Division Clerk 15/05/63 49 years 4. Details of employees appointed on compassionate ground are as follows: Sl. No. Name of employee and designation Date of birth Age (In years) 1. Smt. Sharan Devi, Lower Division Clerk Has retired 2. Ravindra Kumar, Lower Division Clerk (Petitioner) Services had been terminated 3. Nadeem Shafi, Lower Division Clerk 15/05/63 49 years 4. Smt Mamta Rani Shukla, Lower Division Clerk 30/09/65 46 years 5. Umar Daraz Ahmad, Lower Division Clerk 15/07/72 40 years 6. Ravi Singh, Assistant Compiler 03/07/73 39 years 7. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Assistant Compiler 01/09/69 42 years 8. Ajay Singh Bharti, Assistant Compiler 13/02/75 37 years 9. Kaamraj Jaki, Assistant Compiler 12/08/84 27 years It is also made clear that amongst aforesaid employees working on the posts of Assistant Compiler and Lower Division Clerk, one mentioned at serial no. 1 has retired; services of employee mentioned at Sl. no. 2 had already been terminated. Employees at Sl. nos. 3 and 4 have attained age of 45 years. As provided in para 2(2)(1) of Office Memorandum dated 29.09.1992 of Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, these employees may be exempted from typing test. Having attained age above 35 years all other employees except one mentioned at Sl. no. 9, as per provision of para 2(2)(C) of aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 29.09.1992, may also be exempted from typing test on attaining age of 45 years." (English Translation by Court) (emphasis added) 15. It is contended that aforesaid letter clearly shows that there were persons, appointed without having proficiency in typing test and despite the fact that they could not attain said proficiency, simply because they are above 35 or 45 years of age, recommendation has been made for exemption by referring to paragraph 2(2)(1) or 2(2)(c) of Office Memorandum dated 29.09.1992 only for the reason that respondents had chosen not to terminate those persons while petitioner was singled out for such treatment. 16. Learned counsel for respondents, on the contrary, submitted that petitioner was appointed on the condition of passing typing test and repeated opportunities were granted but he failed to attain proficiency and could not pass typing test, hence in terms of conditions of appointment, he has been terminated. 17. We have heard Shri Raj Vikram Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Rao Narendra Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record. 18. 17. We have heard Shri Raj Vikram Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Rao Narendra Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record. 18. From the record, we find that one Umardaraj Ahmad son of Late Akhlakh Ahamd was also given appointment on compassionate basis vide order dated 01.01.1993. The appointment letter was similarly worded as that of petitioner, i.e., a temporary appointment for a period of two years w.e.f. 01.02.1993 and incumbent had to attain proficiency in typing test within two years, failing which, he would be terminated. 19. Shri Umardaraj Ahmad could not pass typing test. However, he was given ad hoc promotion also on the post of Upper Division Clerk. Shri Umardaraj Ahmad made a representation dated 31.12.2002 requesting for exemption from typing test but the same was rejected vide order dated 29.03.2003 and it reads as under: Jh mej njkt vgen] iz0o0fy0 dks muds izR;kosnu fnuakd 31-12-2002 ds lanHkZ esa lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd mudk izR;kosnu fopkjksijkUr ,rn~}kjk fujLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk mUgsa funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd fu;eksa ds ifjizs{; esa os deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx }kjk vk;ksftr Vad.k ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksA "Sh. Umar Daraz Ahmad, Upper Division Clerk, with regard to his representation dated 31.12.2003, is informed that his representation, after consideration, is hereby rejected with an instruction to appear in typing test to be conducted by Staff Selection Commission in view of rules." (English Translation by Court) (emphasis added) 20. Thereafter, vide order dated 04.06.2008, Shri Umardaraj Ahmad was given regular promotion on the post of Upper Division Clerk and subsequently vide order dated 30.01.2015, he was given regular appointment w.e.f. 01.02.1993. The letter dated 30.01.2015 reads as under: Hkkjr ljdkj] dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx] ubZ fnYyh ds dk;kZy; Kkiu la0 14014@6@94& Estt. D dated 9.10.1998 ,oa egkjftLV~kj dk;kZy;] ubZ fnYyh ds i= No. 23021/1/2009 Ad. IV dated 10-12-2014 ds vuqikyu esa bl funs'kky; esa vuqdEik vk/kkj ij fu;qDr fuEukafdr deZpkfj;ksa dh lsok,a] uhps n'kkZ;s x;s vuqlkj mudh izFke fu;qfDr dh fnuakd ls muds izos'k in ij fu;fer dh tkrh gS%& 1 Jh mejnjkt vgen] iz0o0fy0 voj oxZ fyfid 01-02-1993 2 Jherh lq"kek fuxe] v0o0fy0 voj oxZ fyfid 01-01-2003 In pursuance of Office Memorandum No. 14014/6/94Estt. (D) dated 9.10.1998 of Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India and letter no. (D) dated 9.10.1998 of Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India and letter no. 23021/1/2009 Ad.IV dated 10.12.2014 of Registrar Generals Office, New Delhi, services of following employees appointed on compassionate ground are regularised on their entry posts w.e.f. dates of initial appointments in following manner: Sl No. Name of employee and present designation Entry post Date of regularization 1. Shri Umar Daraj Ahmad, Upper Division Clerk Lower Division Clerk 01.02.1993 2. Smt. Sushma Nigam Lower Division Clerk Lower Division Clerk 01.01.2003 (English Translation by Court) (emphasis added) 21. Thereafter, vide order dated 25.06.2015, Shri Umardaraj Ahmad was granted financial up gradation under Assured Career Progression Scheme w.e.f. 01.02.2005 and second financial up gradation was allowed vide order dated 25.06.2015 w.e.f. 01.02.2013. 22. The scheme of compassionate appointment as circulated by Directorate of Personnel and Training's Office Memorandum dated 09.10.1998 has also been placed on record as Annexure RA1 to Rejoinder Affidavit. Para 6 thereof deals with exemptions which reads as under:- "6.A. Exemptions Compassionate appointments are exempted from observance of the following requirements: (a) Recruitment procedure i.e. without the agency of the Staff Selection Commission or the Employment Exchange. (b) Clearance from the Surplus Cell of the Department of Personnel and Training/Directorate General of Employment and Training. (c) The ban orders on filing up of posts issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure). B. Relaxations (a) Upper age limit could be relaxed wherever found to be necessary. The lower age limit should, however, in no case be relaxed below 18 years of age. Note I Age eligibility shall be determined with reference to the date of applicable and not the date of appointment; Note II Authority competent to take a final decision for making compassionate appointment in a case shall be competent to grant relaxation of upper age limit also for making such appointment. (b) Secretary in the Ministry/Department concerned is competent to relax temporarily educational qualifications as prescribed in the relevant recruitment rules in the case of appointment at the lowest level e.g. Group 'D' or Lower Division Clerk post, in exceptional circumstances where the condition of the family is very hard provided there is no vacancy meant for compassionate appointment in a post for which the dependent family member in question is educationally qualified. Such relaxation will be permitted up to a period of two years beyond which no relaxation of educational qualifications will be admissible and the services of the person concerned, if still unqualified, are liable to be terminated. Note In the case of an attached/subordinate office, the Secretary in the concerned administrative Ministry/Department shall be the competent authority for this purpose. (c) In the matter of exemption from the requirement of passing the typing test those appointed on compassionate grounds to the post of Lower Division Clerk will be governed by the general orders issued in this regard:- (i) by the CS Division of the Department of Personnel and Training if the post is included in the Central Secretariat Clerical Service; or (ii) by the Establishment Division of the Department of Personnel and Training if the post is not included in the Central Secretariat Clerical Service. (d) Where a widow is appointed on compassionate ground to a Group 'D' post, she will be exempted from the requirement of possessing the educational qualifications prescribed in the relevant rules provided the duties of the post can be satisfactorily performed by her without possessing such educational qualifications." (emphasis added) 23. An appointment on compassionate basis obviously can be made in accordance with the scheme of such appointments. One cannot doubt that appointee cannot claim exemption from requisite minimum qualification or eligibility conditions for such appointment. However, where there are exceptions or certain exemptions, then a question would arise whether a particular incumbent has met a fair and equal treatment with similarly placed other persons or not. 24. A bare perusal of letter dated 15.03.2012 shows that respondents recommended regularisation of various other persons who were appointed on compassionate basis and could not pass typing test in two years of appointment merely on the ground that they have completed 35 or 45 years of age. Name of petitioner is also mentioned in the said letter but it says that since he has already been terminated, therefore, nothing is required to be done in his case. The unfair and arbitrary treatment to petitioner is fortified from the fact that though he was also appointed in 1992, but terminated vide order dated 09.11.2001, i.e., just before 8 months when he would have completed 45 years of age and would have been entitled for exemption under para 2(2)(c) of Office Memorandum dated 29.09.1992. The unfair and arbitrary treatment to petitioner is fortified from the fact that though he was also appointed in 1992, but terminated vide order dated 09.11.2001, i.e., just before 8 months when he would have completed 45 years of age and would have been entitled for exemption under para 2(2)(c) of Office Memorandum dated 29.09.1992. In this way, he was singled out for which no proper explanation has been put before us. No specific reason in this regard has been given and justification for recommending exemption for others who were appointed on compassionate basis soon after appointment of petitioner also could not be given by respondents. Therefore, we are of the view that here is a case where requirement of typing test, in certain circumstances, was subjected to exemptions under Office Memorandum dated 29.09.1992 which is referable to power of relaxation contained under Rule 6 of Rules, 1984 still only petitioner has been denied this opportunity while similarly placed others have been extended that benefit. 25. Moreover, it is not a qualification which, if lack, in all circumstances would have resulted in non appointment of any incumbent since exemption is clearly admissible. With regard to entitlement for exemption, we are satisfied and have no hesitation in holding that petitioner has been clearly discriminated, vis-a-vis, others who were appointed on compassionate basis and subsequently failed to pass typing test within two years of their appointment but their cases were recommended for exemption and subsequently they were regularised. 26. So far as claim for increment is concerned under the Rules unless a person is regularly appointed or pass typing test, increment cannot be granted. Hence, claim of petitioner with regard to increment, in our view, is not sustainable. 27. In the result, writ petition is partly allowed. Impugned judgment of Tribunal insofar as it has denied increment to petitioner is confirmed but other part of judgment whereby it has dismissed O.A. No. 648 of 2001 is hereby set aside and order of termination dated 09.11.2001 is set aside. We direct respondents Competent Authority to consider petitioner for grant of exemption in accordance with provisions of office memorandum dated 29.09.1992 in the same manner as other persons have been so considered and regularised, as recommended vide letter dated 15.03.2012 and regularised vide order dated 30.01.2015. We direct respondents Competent Authority to consider petitioner for grant of exemption in accordance with provisions of office memorandum dated 29.09.1992 in the same manner as other persons have been so considered and regularised, as recommended vide letter dated 15.03.2012 and regularised vide order dated 30.01.2015. Aforesaid steps shall be completed by respondents within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before authority concerned. 28. No costs.