JUDGMENT Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - The petitioner to the present writ petition has prayed for quashing of the order dated 02.07.2019, which has been passed by respondent No. 3, herein and simultaneously a prayer of a writ of mandamus has also been sought to appoint the petitioner on a suitable post on compassionate grounds. 2. The brief facts, which has been brought on record, and pleaded by the petitioner in the present writ petition is, that he has contended, that his father, who was the confirmed employee and was working as class IV employee, as Anusevak in the School Education Department, had met with the sad demise on 16.02.2019. Subsequent to his death, being one of the members of the family, the petitioner has raised his claim to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds; based on the qualification, which he had claimed to have possessed at the relevant point of time but the claim of the petitioner had been rejected by the impugned order dated 02.07.2019, on the ground that the elder brother of the petitioner and the elder son of the deceased since he was already employed in ITBP, hence in that eventuality, the claim of the petitioner under Rule 5 of the Dying-in-Harness Rules, cannot be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. 3. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that if Rule 5 of the Dying-in-Harness Rules; itself is taken into consideration, which is extracted hereunder, in fact, if a logical interpretation is given to the said provision, it nowhere provides for or creates any embargo that if one of the family members of the deceased is already employed in a government department, it would impede the rights of another member of the family to be appointed under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, except that of the spouse of the deceased government servant. [5. [5. Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased.—(1) In case a Government servant dies in harness after the commencement of these rules and the spouse of the deceased Government servant is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government, one member of his family who is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government shall, on making an application for the purposes, be given a suitable employment in Government service on a post except the post which is within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules if such person— (i) fulfils the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, (ii) is otherwise qualified for Government service, and (iii) makes the application for employment within five years from the date of the death of the Government servant: Provided that where the State Government is satisfied that the time-limit fixed for making the application for employment causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may dispense with or relax the requirement as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. (2) As far as possible, such an employment should be given in the same department in which the deceased Government servant was employed prior to his death.] [(3) Each appointment under sub-rule (1) should be under the condition that the person appointed under sub-rule (1) shall upkeep those other family members of the deceased Government Servant who are incapable for their own maintenance and were dependent of the abovesaid deceased Government servant immediately before his death." 4. This aspect of the matter and the amplitude of application of Rule 5 of the Dying-in-Harness Rule was considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in a judgment which was rendered dated 04.11.2009 in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 434 of 2009, Ajay Kumar Vs. This aspect of the matter and the amplitude of application of Rule 5 of the Dying-in-Harness Rule was considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in a judgment which was rendered dated 04.11.2009 in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 434 of 2009, Ajay Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, wherein while interpreting the implications of Rule 5 therein, the learned Single Judge, while making reference to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court on such matters, has come to the conclusion that merely because of the fact that the brother of the petitioner has already been engaged, that in itself will not create any impediment in considering the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as against the aforesaid judgment, a Special Appeal, being Special Appeal No. 25 of 2010, was preferred before the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench, while dismissing the Special Appeal by the judgment dated 30.04.2010, had recorded the following findings:- "Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants the court finds that the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any error of law. The mere fact that another son of the deceased was already working in the Government Department in his own capacity does not debar the second son of the deceased from applying under the Dying-in- Harness Rules. The Dying-in-Harness Rules contemplate that one person can be appointed under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, in the even the authorities find that the case is one of the hardship and where the appointment is imminently required in order to tide over the financial crisis." 6. In fact, the principles laid down therein, the Division Bench of this Court has observed; that if one of the sons of the deceased employee is already engaged in a government department, that engagement would be treated as to be an independent engagement in his own capacity and rights and if Rule 5 of the Dying-in-Harness Rules is interpreted that in itself will not debar the second son to claim for an appointment on compassionate grounds under the Dying-in-Harness Rules as it remains his independent right. 6. 6. Hence, in that view of the matter, this writ petition stands squarely covered by the principles laid down by the Division Bench judgment dated 30.04.2010 as such the very basis of passing of the impugned order dated 02.07.2019, of rejecting the claim of the petitioner on that premise, cannot be sustained and runs contrary to the principles laid down by the coordinate Bench of this Court; as well as by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. Hence, the impugned order dated 02.07.2019, would stand quashed. The writ petition is allowed. So far as the relief No. 2 for issuance of a writ of mandamus is concerned, the same is issued, and the respondent is directed to reconsider the matter of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance with Rule 1974, however, the engagement of the elder son will not create an impediment in any manner, whatsoever in considering the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. 7. Subject to the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands allowed.