JUDGMENT : ABDUL MOIN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Parmanand Asthana, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 4 and Shri Anand Shankar Asthana, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5. 2. Learned counsel for the parties contend that the issue involved in WRIT - A No. - 6421 of 1993 and WRIT - A No. - 8574 of 2023 are the same. As such, the Court proceeds to hear both the writ petitions together. For convenience, facts of Writ A No. 6421 of 1993 are being taken. 3. By means of the instant petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 14.12.1992, passed by the respondent no. 2 and 22.6.1993 passed by the respondent no. 1, copies of which are annexure 4 and 8 respectively to the writ petition. Further prayer is for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of Assistant Accountant and to pay his salary regularly each month. 4. In Writ A No. 8574 of 2023 the prayer is for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the retiral benefits to the petitioner within specified time. 5. The case set forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner’s father namely Shri Ram Kishan Tiwari was working as a seasonal clerk under the respondent no. 5 Society who died in harness. The petitioner staked his claim for being appointed on compassionate grounds. The respondents vide order dated 17.1.1987, a copy of which is annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 4, appointed the petitioner as a seasonal clerk. It has been pointed out by Shri Parmanand Asthana that in the proposal that had been sent by the Committee of Management of the Society the claim of the petitioner was required to be considered on compassionate grounds which in fact resulted in order dated 17.1.1987 appointing the petitioner as a seasonal clerk. 6. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner finding himself having higher qualifications than that prescribed for the post of seasonal clerk and being fit for being appointed on the post of Assistant Accountant/Clerk sent an application for being appointed on the said post. A copy of the application is annexure A2A to the writ petition. 6. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner finding himself having higher qualifications than that prescribed for the post of seasonal clerk and being fit for being appointed on the post of Assistant Accountant/Clerk sent an application for being appointed on the said post. A copy of the application is annexure A2A to the writ petition. The said application was forwarded by the society vide its applications, copies of which are annexures A2B and A2C the writ petition. The perusal of the said applications would indicate that the society has clearly indicated that the petitioner was working on a seasonal post and that he has moved application for being appointed as per his qualification on a higher post. In pursuance thereto vide order dated 21.1.1991, a copy of which is annexure 3 to the writ petition, passed by the respondent no. 2 the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds as Assistant Accountant/Clerk in the pay scale of Rs 950-1500. 7. Later, vide order dated 14.12.1992, a copy of which is annexure 4 to the writ petition, the petitioner was reverted to the post of seasonal clerk on the ground that (a) due selection process has not been followed while appointing him as Assistant Accountant/Clerk, (b) the petitioner was already working on compassionate grounds as seasonal clerk and (c) the appointment of the petitioner had been done in violation of rules without seeking approval from the competent authority. 8. The petitioner submitted a representation against the same which has been rejected vide order dated 22.6.1993, a copy of which is annexure 8 to the writ petition, by the Cane Commissioner i.e. respondent no. 1. 9. Being aggrieved by both the orders, the instant petition is filed. 10. This Court vide order dated 18.8.1993 stayed the operation of the orders dated 14.12.1992 and 22.6.1993. On the basis of the said stay order, the petitioner continued to work as Assistant Accountant/Clerk. The writ petition itself was dismissed for non prosecution on 30.11.2012. Despite that, the petitioner continued to work as Assistant Accountant/Clerk and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.5.2021. When the petitioner was not paid any retiral dues he was constrained to file Writ A no. 8574 of 2023 praying for being paid his retiral dues. Subsequent thereto the Writ A No. 6421 of 1993 has been restored on 21.5.2025. 11. When the petitioner was not paid any retiral dues he was constrained to file Writ A no. 8574 of 2023 praying for being paid his retiral dues. Subsequent thereto the Writ A No. 6421 of 1993 has been restored on 21.5.2025. 11. It is admitted by learned counsel for the respondents that no retiral dues have been paid to the petitioner either of the post of seasonal clerk or of the post of Assistant Accountant/Clerk. 12. While raising a challenge to the orders impugned dated 14.12.1992 and 22.6.1993, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there has been no concealment on his part in securing appointment of Assistant Accountant/Clerk in as much as in the application that he had moved before the competent authority it was specifically indicated that he was working as a seasonal clerk and that he should be given some post as per his qualification which application was duly forwarded by the Society and was acceded to which has resulted in he being appointed vide order dated 21.1.1991 as Assistant Accountant/Clerk and consequently the reversion order by indicating that as the petitioner had already been appointed on compassionate grounds as seasonal clerk and there would not be any occasion for he to be again appointed on compassionate grounds as Assistant Accountant /Clerk is patently misconceived. 13. The further argument is that once the appointment order was issued as Assistant Accountant/Clerk the petitioner joined and started working as Assistant Accountant/Clerk and thereafter despite the reversion order dated 14.12.1992 and on the basis of the stay order granted by this Court dated 18.8.1993 the petitioner continued to function as an Assistant Accountant/Clerk and thereafter retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.5.2021 and the fact that there was no concealment on his part in he having been appointed as Assistant Accountant/Clerk consequently merely because respondent no. 5 did not get the approval of the Committee of Management of the Regional Cane Service Authority Gorakhpur and the petitioner had no role in getting the said approval and once he has continued all along and discharged the duty of the post of Assistant Accountant/Clerk consequently it would be too late in the day now, having been appointed in the year 1991, for the respondents to aver that the approval of the competent authority was not given to the appointment of the petitioner. 14. 14. The other argument is that a perusal of the other ground taken in the order impugned indicates that due selection process was not followed for making appointment on the post of Assistant Accountant/Clerk. In this regard the argument is that it is settled position of law that compassionate appointment is an exception to the main recruitment process and once the petitioner had been appointed on compassionate grounds consequently the respondents cannot say that the selection process as was provided for making appointment on the said post would be applicable in as much as the petitioner had been appointed on compassionate grounds and not as direct recruit thus it is contended that the reversion order merits to be set aside and the respondents be directed to pay all the retiral dues considering the service rendered by the petitioner as Assistant Accountant/Clerk. 15. Per contra, Shri Anand Shankar Asthana as well as Shri Parmanand Asthana, learned counsels for the respondents argue that once the petitioner had only been appointed on compassionate grounds in the year 1987 consequently there was no occasion for him to be again appointed on compassionate grounds as has been done in the instant case in the year 1991. Upon the said facts been discovered, the reversion order dated 14.12.1992 had been passed and even the representation filed against the same was also rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 22.6.1993. 16. The further argument of learned counsel for the respondents is that once there was no approval given by the competent authority i.e. Committee of Management of the Regional Cane Service Authority Gorakhpur for the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Accountant/Clerk consequently no error has been committed by the respondents in reverting him from the said post of Assistant Accountant Clerk and sending him back to the original post which he was holding i.e. seasonal clerk and there was no requirement of giving any opportunity of hearing as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another vs Raghuwar Pal Singh , (2018) 15 SCC 463. 17. 17. Learned counsel for the respondents have also argued that the petitioner did not raise any challenge to his compassionate appointment on the post of seasonal clerk and thus it would be deemed that he has accepted his appointment as seasonal clerk and consequently there would be no occasion for the respondents to have appointed him on compassionate grounds on the post of Assistant Accountant/Clerk. 18. Another argument raised by learned counsel for the respondents is that as per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs Premlata (2022) 1 SCC 30 a person can only be given appointment on compassionate grounds considering the post that was held by the deceased employee on the basis of which the dependents claim appointment. 19. The argument is that as the father of the petitioner was only a seasonal clerk consequently the petitioner could not have been appointed as an Assistant Accountant/Clerk and he was correctly given appointment on the post of seasonal clerk. 20. Learned counsel for the respondents have also placed reliance on a judgement of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Dutt Sharma vs State of U.P. and others , 2025 SCC OnLine All 252 to contend that in similar circumstances this Court has upheld the cancellation of a subsequent order of compassionate appointment and thus it is contended that merely because the petitioner continued to work as Assistant Accountant/Clerk and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.5.2021 he would not be entitled for any retiral dues on the basis of the working as Assistant Accountant/Clerk. 21. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 22. From perusal of the record it emerges that on account of death of petitioner’s father he had been appointed on compassionate grounds as seasonal clerk vide order dated 17.1.1987. The petitioner finding himself qualified for a higher post i.e. Assistant Accountant/Clerk sent an application for being appointed on the said post. The application was forwarded by the Society wherein it was clearly indicated that the petitioner was working on a seasonal post and that he has moved an application for being appointed as per his qualification on a higher post. 23. Vide order dated 21.1.1991 passed by the respondent no. 2 the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds as Assistant Accountant/Clerk in the pay scale of Rs 950-1500. 23. Vide order dated 21.1.1991 passed by the respondent no. 2 the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds as Assistant Accountant/Clerk in the pay scale of Rs 950-1500. Subsequently vide order dated 14.12.1992 the petitioner was reverted to the post of seasonal clerk on the ground that (a) due selection process has not been followed while appointing him as Assistant Accountant/Clerk and (b) the petitioner was already working on compassionate grounds as seasonal clerk and consequently his appointment on compassionate grounds again has been done in violation of rules and without seeking approval of the competent authority. The representation filed by the petitioner against the cancellation order was also rejected vide order dated 22.6.1993. Being aggrieved the petitioner challenged the orders dated 14.12.1992 and 22.6.1993 before this Court in the instant petition. This Court vide order dated 18.8.1993 stayed the operation of the orders dated 14.12.1992 and 22.6.1993 and on the basis of the said order the petitioner continued to work as an Assistant Accountant/Clerk and thereafter retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.5.2021. However the retiral dues have not been given by the respondents, either of the post of seasonal clerk or the post of Assistant Accountant/Clerk. 24. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents is that once the petitioner had already been appointed on the post of seasonal clerk on compassionate grounds there could not be any occasion for he to be appointed on compassionate grounds again vide order dated 14.12.1992 more particularly when there was no approval from the competent authority pertaining to his appointment on higher post. It is also contended that the appointment of the petitioner on a higher post was in violation of the Rules. 25. The aforesaid grounds as taken by the respondents are found to be patently fallacious and misconceived. The reasons are not far to seek. The application was filed by the petitioner seeking his compassionate appointment on higher post as per his qualification which was duly forwarded by the society indicating the petitioner having been appointed on compassionate grounds on seasonal post and he seeking his compassionate appointment on a higher post which was duly acceded by respondent no. 2 and the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Accountant/Clerk vide order dated 21.1.1991. 2 and the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Accountant/Clerk vide order dated 21.1.1991. The petitioner, after his appointment, continued to work on the higher post and thereafter retired on attaining the age of superannuation while working on the said post. It is not the case of the respondents that any fraud or misrepresentation was committed by the petitioner while seeking his appointment on compassionate grounds on a higher post rather, as already indicated above, the application was duly forwarded by the Society indicating the fact of the petitioner having earlier been appointed on compassionate grounds and the same found favour with the respondent no. 2 when the appointment order of the petitioner was issued on a higher post. Thus the grounds taken by the respondents are misconceived and are accordingly rejected. 26. So far as the ground that the rules were not followed while making appointment on the post of Assistant Accountant/Clerk suffice to state that compassionate appointment is an exception to the rule of equality in public employment and the appointment is only to be made in accordance with the rules which in fact has been done in the instant case (see General Manager, State Bank of India and others vs Anju Jain , 2008(8) SCC 475) 27. The ground that the appointment order was not approved by the competent authority looses all relevance at this stage of time considering the fact that again, no fraud or misrepresentation was committed by the petitioner when he was appointed on a higher post and the fact that the approval was to be sought from the competent authority by the respondent no. 2 in which the petitioner had no role and thus the fault on the part of the respondent no. 2 in not seeking approval of the competent authority, if at all, cannot be placed on the shoulders of the petitioner so as to have enabled the respondents to have cancelled the appointment order of the petitioner. Thus the said ground is also rejected. 28. As regards the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghuwar Pal Singh (supra) the same would have no applicability in the facts of the instant case in as much as the said case was not one of compassionate appointment. Thus the said ground is also rejected. 28. As regards the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghuwar Pal Singh (supra) the same would have no applicability in the facts of the instant case in as much as the said case was not one of compassionate appointment. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where an appointment order could only be issued by an authorized officer after obtaining approval of competent authority and the said appointment order having been issued by lack of authority, would be a nullity in the eyes of law. Here, the said principle would not be applicable considering the fact that compassionate appointment is an exception to the main rule and the fact that the petitioner continued to serve on the higher post after he had been appointed and has also retired on attaining the age of superannuation while working on a higher post. Thus the said judgement would have no applicability in the facts of the case. 29. So far as the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Premlata (supra) is concerned, the same pertains to Hon'ble Supreme Court having held that the appointment of a dependent on compassionate grounds would be to a post held by the deceased employee. There cannot be any dispute to the aforesaid proposition of law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court but in the instant case the respondents had already appointed the petitioner on a higher post in the year 1991 and the petitioner continued to work on the higher post till his superannuation in the year 2021 i.e. for the period of 30 years as such the aforesaid judgement would have no applicability in the facts of the instant case. 30. As regards judgement of this Court in the case of Shiv Dutt Sharma ( supra) though the same pertains to the issue as to once a person having availed the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds could again claim appointment on higher post on compassionate grounds, has been answered in the negative by this Court. But in the case in hand, the petitioner has already been given compassionate appointment on a higher post and he having served for more than 30 years has retired while working on a higher post and as such the said judgement would not be of any help to the respondents. 31. But in the case in hand, the petitioner has already been given compassionate appointment on a higher post and he having served for more than 30 years has retired while working on a higher post and as such the said judgement would not be of any help to the respondents. 31. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed The orders impugned dated 14.12.1992 and 22.6.1993, copies of which are annexure 4 and 8 to the writ petition are set aside. 32. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to pay all retiral dues of petitioner of the post of Assistant Accountant/Clerk. Let the respondents comply with this order within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.