JUDGMENT Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard fnally by the consent of the parties. 2. Petitioner No.1 is a young widow aged about 30 years, whose deceased husband Pandurang Hoge was working as a Peon on permanent basis in Sant Dyaneshwar Vidyalaya, Parbhani. Her husband Pandurang Dyandev Hoge was appointed on 22.06.1998, as a Peon. After her marriage, her name changed to Renuka Pandurang Hoge. She has fled this petition in her maiden name, as her municipal records, school records carry her maiden name. Her husband died in an accident on 08.06.2017 after putting in 19 years in employment. He was a permanent employee. 3. Petitioner No.1 was appointed on compassionate basis as a Peon in place of her husband on 01.08.2017, which is within less than two months of his demise. Petitioner No.2 - Head Master of the School submitted her proposal to respondent No.3 for seeking approval vide the proposal dated 02.11.2017. The petitioner-widow had approached the learned 6th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Parbhani in Civil Misc. Application No.403 of 2017 for issuance of an heirship certificate so as to be recognized as the legal heir of the deceased. Vide order dated 01.01.2018, she was declared as the legal heir of the deceased Pandurang Hoge. 4. The learned AGP has relied upon the affidavit-in-reply fled by Mr. Madhav Sakharam Salgar, Deputy Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Parbhani to canvass that though the petitioner-widow is working on compassionate basis from 01.08.2017, the issue of sanction of staffing pattern for the non-teaching post is still under consideration of the Government and the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds, cannot be considered. It is further stated in the affidavit that until the staffing pattern of the non-teaching staff is not sanctioned by the Government and there is no policy decision with regard to the same, a fresh appointment on a non-teaching post cannot be approved. 5. We have perused the impugned order dated 14.03.2018 passed by respondent No.3 Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Parbhani. To say the least, the impugned order neither reflects application of mind, nor does it indicate any reason on the part of the Education Officer in considering the case of the petitioner-widow. He has simply referred to certain Government Resolutions, that too in the reference portion of the letter addressed to the Head Master. To say the least, the impugned order neither reflects application of mind, nor does it indicate any reason on the part of the Education Officer in considering the case of the petitioner-widow. He has simply referred to certain Government Resolutions, that too in the reference portion of the letter addressed to the Head Master. He neither refers to those Government Resolutions in the body of the impugned order, nor has he even whispered that the approval cannot be granted in the light of the contents of any particular Government Resolution. 6. The learned AGP has relied upon a Government Resolution dated 12.02.2015, which is not referred to in the reference column even by the Education Officer in the impugned order. By referring to the said Government Resolution, he submits that there was a ban on recruitment of newly created posts or the posts, which are vacant. We do not find that the said Government Resolution would have any application to the fact that the petitioner-widow was already appointed on compassionate basis in place of her deceased husband on 01.08.2017, which was perfectly in tune with the policy of the Government. Our view is strengthened by a judgment cited by the learned advocate for the petitioners dated 10.03.2021 delivered at the principal seat in Writ Petition No.15018 of 2019 fled by Bharti Bhausaheb Thakare Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another. The learned Bench has referred to an earlier decision of a Co-ordinate Bench dated 11.12.2018 delivered at the principal seat in Writ Petition No.7507 of 2016, vide which the ground for sustaining the refusal to permit compassionate appointment, has not been sustained. 7. In the matter of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others, (1994) 4 SCC 138 and Local Administration Department and another Vs. M. Selvanayagam Alias Kumaravelu, (2011) 13 SCC 42 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has concluded that the appointment on compassionate ground is not only a humane act, but is aimed at facilitating immediate succor to the family in distress, who has suddenly lost the sole bread earner and is rendered to starvation. Any act on the part of the Government in delaying compassionate appointment causing further distress to the family, is unconscionable. 8. Any act on the part of the Government in delaying compassionate appointment causing further distress to the family, is unconscionable. 8. We do not find from any Government Resolution cited by the learned AGP that a ban on fresh recruitment or recruitment on vacant posts until the staffing pattern is approved, would apply to the case of a widow, who has already been appointed on compassionate grounds. The only silver lining in this case is that the authorities have shown wisdom in promptly appointing the petitioner-widow on compassionate grounds on 01.08.2017. Had this not been done, it needs no debate that the petitioner-widow and her two minor children, as on date of the death of her husband, would have been on the streets and would have also suffered personally insofar as their education is concerned, as both of them were in school. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order which is unreasoned and cryptic, cannot be sustained, it being beyond logic and reason. 10. As such, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.03.2018 stands quashed and set aside. The third respondent shall forthwith accord approval to the compassionate appointment of the petitioner-widow on or before 31.08.2021. 11. Rule made absolute, in the above terms. 12. Needless to state, the approval of the compassionate appointment of the petitioner-widow would be accompanied with all consequential monetory benefits.