JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel for respondent no.1 and Shri Anag Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 5. 2. By means of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: "(1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27.12.2017 passed by the respondent no.2 contained as annexure no.1 to the petition. (2) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner as regular employee since the date of appointment and pay to him arrears of salary and other consequential benefits to the petitioner and also pay the regular salary by treating him as regular employee." 3. At the very outset, Shri Mishra states that this Court vide order dated 04.07.2023 had required the appearance of Deputy Cane Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal Gonda as none had appeared on behalf of the respondents when the case was listed on the said date. He states that his non appearance on the said date was on account of the fact that his full name was not indicated in the cause list and he could not note the said case. Shri Mishra states that henceforth he will be careful in noting when the case is listed. 4. In pursuance to the order dated 04.07.2023, Shri R.V. Ram, Deputy Cane Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda is present. 5. The case set forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner's husband was posted as Seasonal Peon in the department of Sahakari Ganna Samiti Mankapur, District Gonda i.e. respondent no.5. He claims that the petitioner's husband died in harness in the year 1993 and so the petitioner staked a claim for being appointed on compassionate ground under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1974'). In pursuance thereof an appointment letter dated 05.01.1994, a copy of which is annexure no.2 to the petition, was issued to the petitioner whereby the petitioner was appointed as Seasonal Peon in a regular pay scale of Rs.750-940. However, the appointment letter stated that the appointment would be on temporary basis. In pursuance thereof an appointment letter dated 05.01.1994, a copy of which is annexure no.2 to the petition, was issued to the petitioner whereby the petitioner was appointed as Seasonal Peon in a regular pay scale of Rs.750-940. However, the appointment letter stated that the appointment would be on temporary basis. Subsequent thereto an order dated 16.03.2010, a copy of which is annexure no.3 to the petition, was issued by the Cane Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow. The order stated that through an order dated 26.10.1988, the posts of Seasonal Chaprasis-Jamadars have been abolished in the Samitis and that it had been directed that all working Seasonal Chaprasis should be adjusted on other posts and in case they cannot be adjusted, then they should be continued in the same capacity till their retirement. It was also indicated in the said order that as the post of Seasonal Chaprasi had come to an end as such, the petitioner should not have been appointed on the post of Seasonal Chaprasi. However, as the petitioner had been continuing for a period of approximately 16 years it was decided that her claim for appointment against the post of Chaprasi be considered against her category of SC in case a post is vacant. 6. When nothing was done in the matter, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing Writ Petition No.24513 (S/S) of 2017 in Re: Smt. Tara Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others claiming regularization. The writ petition was decided vide judgment and order dated 12.10.2017, a copy of which is annexure no.4 to the petition, whereby this Court required the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. 7. In pursuance thereof the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 27.12.2017, a copy of which is annexure no.1 to the petition, on the ground that despite the order of Cane Commissioner dated 16.03.2010 there is no vacant post of Chaprasi against her category i.e. SC. 8. 7. In pursuance thereof the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 27.12.2017, a copy of which is annexure no.1 to the petition, on the ground that despite the order of Cane Commissioner dated 16.03.2010 there is no vacant post of Chaprasi against her category i.e. SC. 8. Raising a challenge to the order impugned, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that although the petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2020 yet considering that all along she has continued on the post of Chaprasi, she is entitled for her retiral dues which, as pension is not payable in the society in which the petitioner was working, are Provident Fund and Gratutiy. 9. In this regard, it is argued that as admittedly the petitioner was appointed under the provisions of 1974 Rules and such appointment could only have been made against the regular post, as such for all practical purposes the working of the petitioner is to be treated as regular employee. Consequently she is entitled for her entire retired dues as admissible to her on her retirement on 31.03.2020 treating her as a regular employee. 10. In support of his argument that compassionate appointment can only be made against a regular post, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgments of this Court in the cases of Ram Chandra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others-2008(26)LCD 669 and Ravi Karan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh - 1999 (17) LDC 641. 11. On the other hand, Shri Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 to 5 argues on the basis of the averments contained in the counter affidavit that admittedly the petitioner was appointed as Seasonal Chaprasi-Peon. Upon her claim for being given regular appointment, the Cane Commissioner has passed the order dated 16.03.2010 whereby the earlier order dated 26.10.1988 had been considered which had abolished the post of Seasonal Chaprasis. However, as the petitioner had been working for approximately 16 years as such it was decided that the claim of her appointment against a regular post of Chaprasi be considered against her category. However, as the petitioner had been working for approximately 16 years as such it was decided that the claim of her appointment against a regular post of Chaprasi be considered against her category. Subsequently it was found that against four regular posts of Chaprasis, there were 5 persons who were working and as such, despite the order of writ court dated 12.10.2017 for consideration of regularization, neither a claim for regularization nor her claim for regular appointment was found tenable or feasible, and as such the representation has been rejected vide order dated 27.12.2017. Thus there is no illegality in the impugned order. 12. So far as the claim of the petitioner of her being treated as a regular employee as per the provision of Rules, 1974, the argument of Shri Mishra is that as the husband of the petitioner was also a Seasonal Chaprasi as such there was no provision in the rules of the Samiti or the cane department for giving compassionate appointment to the dependent of a seasonal employee. However, considering the plight of the petitioner that she was a widow, it was decided to appoint her on compassionate grounds and as much no illegality and infirmity has been committed by the respondents while appointing the petitioner on compassionate grounds on a seasonal post. It is also contended that as the petitioner was retired on attaining the age of superannuation while working as Seasonal Chaprasi as such she is not entitled for retiral dues. 13. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, it emerges that the husband of the petitioner was working in the Samiti i.e. under the respondent no.5 as a Seasonal Peon who died in harness on 05.01.1994. The petitioner staked her claim for appointment on compassionate grounds under the provision of Rules, 1974. The respondents acceded to the request of the petitioner and appointed her on compassionate grounds as a Seaonal Peon in a Regular Pay Scale of Rs.750-940. Admittedly the appointment of the petitioner has been made under the provision of Rules, 1974 as emerges from a perusal of the appointment order dated 05.01.1994 by use of the words e`rd vkfJr ds 'kklukUxZr^^ i.e. appointed in accordance with Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. Admittedly the appointment of the petitioner has been made under the provision of Rules, 1974 as emerges from a perusal of the appointment order dated 05.01.1994 by use of the words e`rd vkfJr ds 'kklukUxZr^^ i.e. appointed in accordance with Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. As the petitioner was only working on Seasonal basis, she staked her claim for being appointed on a regular basis which the Cane Commissioner, vide his order dated 16.07.2010, was of the view that considering the long service of the petitioner of approximately 16 years, she be considered as regular employee as Chaprasi against her category i.e. SC Category. 14. Whenno orders were passed, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by staking her claim for being regularized on the post of Chaprasi. This Court vide order dated 12.10.2017 required the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, which has been rejected by them vide order dated 27.12.2017 on the ground that as there was no vacant post in her category i.e. S.C. as Chaprasi, consequently she cannot be given a regular appointment. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner continued to work as a Seasonal Chaprasi and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2020. 15. What appears to have escaped the attention of the respondents while initially appointing the petitioner as Seasonal Peon on compassionate ground in the year 1994 is that the Rules, 1974 have been interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ravi Karan Singh (supra) which has held as under:- "In our opinion, an appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules has to be treated as a permanent appointment otherwise if such appointment is treated to be a temporary appointment then it will follow that soon after the appointment the service can be terminated and this will nullify the very purpose of the Dying in Harness Rules because such appointment is intended to provide immediate relief to the family on the sudden death of the bread earner. We, therefore, hold that the appointment under Dying in Harness Rule is a permanent appointment and not a temporary appointment, and hence the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975 will not apply to such appointments." 16. We, therefore, hold that the appointment under Dying in Harness Rule is a permanent appointment and not a temporary appointment, and hence the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975 will not apply to such appointments." 16. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Chandra (supra) held as under:- "It is admitted case of the parties that father of the petitioner, late Sri Ram Dhiraj was working as Class IV employee in Rajkiya Vastukala Mahavidyalaya, Lucknow, who expired while he was in service. The petitioner thereafter moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants (Dying-in-Harness) Rules, 1974. It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was appointed by the order dated 19.3.1983 on a Class IV post. It is settled law that the appointments made under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants (Dying-in-Harness) Rules, 1974 are of permanent nature. Since appointment of the petitioner was of permanent nature, the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 were not applicable. The impugned termination order dated 10.12.1985 is legally not sustainable." 17. From perusal of the aforesaid judgments, it emerges that this Court has repeatedly held that a compassionate appointment can only be made on regular basis. When the respondents acceded to the request of the petitioner for her appointment on compassionate grounds, consequently it would be deemed that the appointment done through the appointment order dated 05.01.1994 was made on a regular basis despite it indicating it as a seasonal appointment. Further the petitioner having continued for the period of 24 years and she having retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2020, her retiral dues have not been given on the ground that she retired as a seasonal employee/ clerk. Once the petitioner had been appointed on compassionate grounds under the provisions of Rules, 1974 and as per Rules, 1974 compassionate appointment can only be made on a regular post, consequently her appointment and continuous service of the petitioner should have been treated by the respondents to be made on regular basis keeping in view of the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgments. 18. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition is allowed. 19. 18. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition is allowed. 19. The order impugned dated 27.12.2017, a copy of which is annexure no.1 to the petitioner, is quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondents directing them to consider the payment of retiral dues of the petitioner treating her to have been appointed on a regular post under the provision of Rules, 1974 and also make payment of her retiral dues in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.