JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned Standing Counsel for appellants. None appeared on behalf of petitioner-respondent though case has been called in revise, hence, we proceed to decide appeal after hearing learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. 2. This intra-Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1952”) has arisen from judgment and order dated 9.7.2010 passed by learned Single Judge disposing of writ petition No. 39403 of 2010 filed by petitioner-respondent in terms of order passed in Special Appeal No. 353 of 2010. 3. It is submitted that aforesaid judgment will have no application in the case in hand for the reason that petitioner-respondent’ father while working as Constable in Uttar Pradesh Police were died on 13.11.2000 in harness. Thereafter, petitioner-respondent applied for compassionate appointment and was given appointment on the post of Constable. 4. Now, in view of judgment of Division Bench in Special Appeal, writ petition was filed that he should be given higher post of Sub-Inspector by allowing him physical test afresh, which is not permissible in view of law laid down by Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh, 1994(6) SCC 560 , wherein Court while considering a similar issue held that as soon as one is appointed on compassionate basis, the appointment stands completed. In para 8 of the judgement the Apex Court clearly held: “...He was appointed to the post of LDC by order dated 14.12.1989. He accepted the appointment as LDC. Therefore, the right to be considered for the appointment on compassionate ground was consummated. No further consideration on compassionate ground would ever arise. Otherwise, it would be a case of “endless compassion”." (emphasis added) 5. Again this issue was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Dinesh Chandra Sharma v. District Inspector of Schools, Meerut and others, 2000(4) AWC 3262 . There legal heir of deceased employee was given appointment on compassionate basis as Clerk. Subsequently, he became qualified for the post of Assistant Teacher and claimed that he was entitled to be considered for appointment on the said post on compassionate ground. Hon’ble Single Judge, relying on Umrao Singh (supra) held that once appointment has been made on compassionate ground, claimant is not entitled to get any other appointment on different post simply because he has now obtained qualification for other post subsequently. 6. Hon’ble Single Judge, relying on Umrao Singh (supra) held that once appointment has been made on compassionate ground, claimant is not entitled to get any other appointment on different post simply because he has now obtained qualification for other post subsequently. 6. In Kamlesh Kumar Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2001 (3) UPLBEC 2188 , Sri Pandey was appointed on compassionate basis as a class-IV employee. He accepted the appointment and joined service without any objection. Claiming thereafter appointment on a class-III post, he approached this Court. Rejecting the claim, it was held: “Once having accepted an appointment, may be on Class-IV post under existing situation out of will and volition, the ‘chapter’ of Dying in Harness is closed. No one should be permitted to re-agitate this matter in future on the basis of change of circumstances in further leaving everything in turmoil and in a state of indecisiveness. It if is permitted, no litigation will ever come to an end.” (Para 10) 7. Similar is the view taken by another Hon’ble Single Judge in Raghunandan Pandey v. District Inspector of Schools, Basti and others, 2004(3) AWC 2535 and in para 8 of the judgment, the Court said: “It is well-settled that appointment on compassionate ground is given only to tide away the sudden financial crisis which the family of the deceased employee faces because of the sudden death of the sole bread earner of the family. Thus, once a member of the family of the deceased employee is given appointment on such ground, which is also accepted by the claimant, the reason for giving such appointment, which is for support to the family of the deceased employee, does not exist thereafter. The appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules cannot be made an alternate source or mode of appointment.” 8. In Shyamdhar Mishra v. State of U.P., 2006(2) AWC 1415 , reiterating the aforesaid view following Umrao Singh (supra), this Court in para 9 of the judgment held: “In my view, once the appointment is made on the compassionate ground, the said rule comes to an end and no further appointment could be made under the said Rules. The authority could not, in any manner, reconsider the case of the petitioner or of any other person where an appointment had already been given at some anterior point of time, on compassionate ground under the Dying-in-Harness Rules.” 9. The authority could not, in any manner, reconsider the case of the petitioner or of any other person where an appointment had already been given at some anterior point of time, on compassionate ground under the Dying-in-Harness Rules.” 9. The same thing has been reiterated in Suresh Prasad Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2006(9) ADJ 705 (para 5). 10. Another Division Bench of this Court following Umrao Singh (supra) in Shardendu Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others in Special Appeal 908 of 2006 decided on 22.8.2006 held as under : “The submission of learned Standing Counsel that once compassionate appointment is accepted, the right is exhausted and there cannot be any second consideration for the same right is well founded. The judgment of Apex Court in State of Rajasthan (supra) fully support the said submission.” 11. We find that in the writ petition, this fact has not been disclosed that petitioner-respondent was already appointed under the provision of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1974”) on the post of Constable and this fact has been disclosed in the appeal by appellants stating that petitioner-respondent was appointed as Constable long back and writ petition was filed after four years when he was already appointed on the post of Constable. 12. Since this fact remains uncontroverted that petitioner-respondent was already appointed as Constable under the provisions of Rules, 1974, hence, question of his further prayer for consideration in higher post cannot be taken into consideration in view of Apex Court decision in Umrao Singh (supra) that once an appointment is made under the provisions of Rules, 1974, right to claim compassionate appointment stands exhausted and incumbent cannot claim any appointment subsequently on a higher post. 13. In the result, appeal is allowed. Judgment passed by learned Single Judge dated 9.7.2010 in Writ Petition No. 39403 of 2010 is hereby set aside.