JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. The petitioner, who is dependent of deceased employee late Harish Chandra Tiwari, has instituted these proceedings assailing the order dated 28.10.2016 passed by the Director, Employees State Insurance Scheme, Kanpur whereby her claim for compassionate appointment has been referred to the State Government seeking certain directions/guidance. Learned Standing Counsel for the State has produced instructions received from the Director, Employees State Insurance Scheme, Labour and Medical Services, U.P.,Kanpur through his letter dated 17.02.2017. The said instructions contain in the letter dated 17.02.2017 are taken on record. He has also produced the letter dated 18.02.2017 written by the State Government to the Director, Employees State Insurance Scheme which is also taken on record. The petitioner's father was employed as Peon at Hospital/Dispensary, Juhi-2, Kanpur and during his service period, he died on 17.07.2015 leaving behind him his wife aged about 50 years and two daughters, namely, Jyotsna Tiwari (the petitioner) and Km. Padmaja Tiwari, who is 17 years of age. The petitioner accordingly made an application to the Director, Employees State Insurance Scheme, Labour and Medical Services, U.P.,Kanpur claiming compassionate appointment. Since nothing in the matter was being done, she filed writ petition bearing No.15578 (S/S) of 2016 which was disposed of with the direction to the Director, Employees State Insurance Scheme, Labour and Medical Services, U.P. Kanpur to decide the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with law and keeping in view the observations made by this Court in the said judgement. It is in compliance of the order dated 25.07.2016 that the impugned order dated 28.10.2016 has been passed wherein it has been observed that father of the petitioner was appointed by one Dr.S.R.D.Lakhyani, the then Medical Superintendent, Employees State Insurance Hospital, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur. It has further been observed that similarly certain appointments were made by the Deputy Director, namely, Dr. A.P.Singh, in respect of which the State Government by means of its letter dated 17.02.2016 has made certain objections to the effect that the said appointments were made by Dr. A.P. Singh whereas the appointing authority was the Director. The Director while passing the impugned order has further observed that in reference to the said letter of the State Government dated 17.02.2016 a detailed report has been sent to the State Government which is still pending. A.P. Singh whereas the appointing authority was the Director. The Director while passing the impugned order has further observed that in reference to the said letter of the State Government dated 17.02.2016 a detailed report has been sent to the State Government which is still pending. It has, thus, been stated in the impugned order that since the matter has been referred in respect of the letter dated 17.02.2016 to the State Government, as such the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment shall be considered only once the requisite guidance/instructions are issued by the State Government in response to the letter of directorate dated 15.09.2016. The petitioner's father was appointed in the year 1990, a copy of appointment letter dated 12.06.1990 has been annexed to the writ petition. The appointment letter of the petitioner's father reveals that his appointment was made on the basis of recommendation made by the Selection Committee. The petitioner's father having been appointed by means of the aforesaid letter dated 12.06.1990 had served the respondents continuously, that too on regular basis till he died in harness on 17.07.2015. Thus, the petitioners' father had served the respondents on regular basis for a period of more than twenty five years and during his service period, no such objection was ever raised, as is being sought to be raised in respect of his appointment by the Director while passing the impugned order dated 28.10.2016. During the life time of the petitioner's father, neither his appointment was cancelled nor any action was taken against him. The post-retirement dues on the death of the petitioner's father have also been paid upto the maximum extent. However, while considering the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, now an objection in relation to appointment of the petitioner's father is being raised after his death, which in my considered opinion, is not permissible at this stage. It is not in dispute that appointment of the petitioner's father made on regular basis was never questioned or cancelled by the respondents and as such after his death, raising such an objection in relation to his appointment, that too while considering the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, is not tenable. It is not in dispute that appointment of the petitioner's father made on regular basis was never questioned or cancelled by the respondents and as such after his death, raising such an objection in relation to his appointment, that too while considering the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, is not tenable. It is also noteworthy that the State Government by the letter dated 18.02.2017 has clearly observed that on the basis of letter/proposal dated 15.09.2016 sent by the Directorate, it is not appropriate that even in the matter of compassionate appointment, any guidance is required from the State Government. The said letter of the State Government clearly states that the decision in respect of claim of the petitioner's appointment on compassionate ground should be taken at the Directorate level/by the appointing authority. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the considered opinion that the reasons indicated in the impugned order which virtually denied the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment are not tenable. The appointment of the petitioner's father was never questioned nor was it cancelled during his life time and he died while working with the respondents. In such an eventuality denying the claim to the petitioner' appointment on compassionate ground on the reason indicated in the impugned order dated 28.10.2016 does not bear any rationale worth sustaining the said order. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.10.2016 is hereby quashed. The Director, Employees State Insurance Scheme, Labour and Medical Services, U.P.,Kanpur is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner's appointment on compassionate ground afresh in accordance with law and the rules applicable thereto. In case the petitioner is found eligible to be given appointment on compassionate ground, the same shall be done by the Director accordingly. It is further observed that the petitioner's appointment on compassionate ground shall not be rejected at all on the ground as mentioned in the impugned order dated 28.10.2016. The consideration of the claim of the petitioner under this order shall be made and the petitioner, if found suitable otherwise for being given compassionate appointment, shall be appointed accordingly within a maximum period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. However, there will be no order as to costs.