Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) RESPONDENT-Appellant aggrieved by order dated 26.9.2003 passed by a learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.18172 of 1994, has preferred this appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the petitioner-respondent herein filed a writ petition for quashing the order dated 30.3.1994, whereby her prayer for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected by the General Manager of Kanpur Jal Sansthan. According to the petitioner- respondent, her husband died on 5.9.1993, while working as a daily wage employee for about 11 years. According to the respondent, he left behind him three daughters and one son. She filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 8.9.1993, but she was denied the said appointment on the ground that her husband being a daily wage employee, compassionate appointment cannot be given. In the writ petition, the respondent had further averred that the dependant of one Ram Kishun, who had worked only for 5 years as a daily wager, was given appointment on compassionate ground. Mr. R.M. Saggi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that Dying-in-Harness Rules do not provide for appointment on compassionate ground to the dependants of the daily wage employees. He further points out that so far as Smt. Gyanwati is concerned, she has not been appointed on compassionate ground in place of Ram Kishun, but was engaged on daily wage basis. List has been revised, but nobody appears on behalf of the respondent. It is well settled that appointment on compassionate ground is to be provided in terms of relevant Rules. In case, the rule does not provide for appointment on compassionate ground to the dependant of a daily wage employee, no direction can be given to appoint the dependant of the daily wage employee on compassionate ground. Assuming that Smt. Gyanwati was given appointment on compassionate ground as a dependant of a daily wage employee, but that will not itself entitle the respondent to be appointed on compassionate ground. Law does not permit the appointment of the dependant of a daily wage employee on compassionate ground. Therefore, illegal act of giving compassionate appointment to Smt. Gyanwati, if at all, shall not enure to the benefit of respondent. These aspects of the matter have not been considered by the learned Single Judge. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 26.9.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.18172 of 1994, is set aside, and the writ petition is dismissed.;