JUDGMENT : 1. The present intra-Court appeal has been filed challenging the order dated June 18, 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge. vide aforesaid order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent, directing consideration of her claim for compassionate appointment. 2. It is a case in which father of the respondent was working as Part-time Tubewell Operator since January 25, 1990. After serving the department for more than two decades, he unfortunately expired on August 25, 2010. As the claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment was rejected, she filed the writ petition before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the case in hand, the deceased father of the respondent was not a regular employee, hence the claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment was rejected as in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 only the dependent of deceased regular Government employee is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment. He further submitted that the direction given by learned Single Judge to treat the deceased father of the respondent as regular employee of the department, is erroneous as no such positive direction could have been issued by learned Single Judge. No person appointed after the deceased father of the respondent, was made regular. In support of his case, learned counsel for the appellants has cited judgments of this Court State of U.P. through Secretary Irrigation Department Lucknow and Others vs. Smt. Madhu Devi, 2010 (7) ADJ 683 (DB); Special Appeal No. 655 of 2006 (State of U.P. through Secretary Irrigation vs. Rakesh Kumar) decided on December 13, 2010 and Special Appeal Defective No. 225 of 2021 (V.C. Narendra Deo University of Agriculture and Technology, Ayodhya and Others vs. Ashok Kumar and Another) decided on July 12, 2021. 4. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, while relying upon judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court dated August 3, 2016 in Writ Appeal No. 35631 of 2016, titled as Uttam Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others (in short Uttam Singh's Case), judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated September 10, 2018 in Special Appeal Defective No. 264 of 2018, titled as Uttam Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others (in short Uttam Singh's Case) and the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court dated August 3, 2021 in Civil Appeal No. 4575 of 2021, titled as State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Uttam Singh (in short 'Uttam Singh's Case-3'), submitted that the deceased therein was working as a Part-time Tubewell Operator. The claim of his son for compassionate appointment was rejected. The writ petition filed against the said order was dismissed by the learned Single Judge in Uttam Singh's Case-1 holding that the deceased employee was a Part-time Tubewell Operator, hence his dependent was not entitled for compassionate appointment. The order passed by learned Single Judge in Uttam Singh's Case-1 was reversed by the Division Bench in Uttam Singh's Case-2. Further, the State challenged the aforesaid Division Bench judgment before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Uttam Singh's Case-3, which was dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court on August 3, 2021. As identical issue has already been gone into by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and on same facts and circumstances, the dependent of deceased Part-time Tubewell Operator has been granted compassionate appointment, there is no error in the order passed by learned Single Judge. Hence, no interference is called for in the present appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 6. The admitted facts on record are that the deceased father of the respondent was appointed as Part-time Tubewell Operator vide order dated January 25, 1990 after following due process. There is no doubt about his eligibility to hold the post. He could not be regularised only because there was no vacancy, otherwise the fact that he had worked continuously for a period of more than two decades, is not in dispute. 7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has considered similar issue in Uttam Singh's Case-3. In that case as well, the deceased was a Part-time Tubewell Operator wherein the nature of his appointment was considered. 7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has considered similar issue in Uttam Singh's Case-3. In that case as well, the deceased was a Part-time Tubewell Operator wherein the nature of his appointment was considered. It was taken note of that even Part-time Tubewell Operators were being transferred to different departments. That conduct of the department shows that they were being treated as regular employees for all purposes, though technically, their services were not regularised. In any case, period of two decades for anyone to work, is quite long. Reference was also made to certain other persons, who were similarly placed and in whose cases compassionate appointments were offered to the dependants of deceased employees. The fact can also be taken note of that a Part-time Tubewell Operator is a low paid employee and the family, on the death of the sole bread earner, will certainly be in harness. 8. Though, we have our reservations about the direction given by learned Single Judge treating the deceased father of the respondent as regular employee of the department, but still, considering the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the facts of the case, we do not find any error in the direction given for consideration of claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, there is no merit in the present appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.