COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) 1826/2002 Anand Singh Bisht …….Petitioner Versus Executive Engineer, Sinchai Khand, Chamoli & Others …….Respondents Sri M.S. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 1st May, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 23.8.2001, which is contained in Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner was denied the appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules on the ground of delay. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner under the Dying in Harness Rules. 2. Late Sri Balwant Singh was working as Mate in the office of the respondent no. 1 at Chamoli, who died in harness on 9.8.1976. At the time of death of his father, the petitioner was a minor. The date of birth of the petitioner is 3.5.1971. In the year 1991, on attaining the age of majority, application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was moved by his mother under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. Thereafter, petitioner also submitted an application for 2 his compassionate appointment. But the appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules was denied to the petitioner by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner’s application was belated one and, therefore, barred by the limitation. 3. Undisputedly the petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father. After attaining the age of majority, application was moved on behalf of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in the year 1991. His case for appointment was rejected only on one ground that his application for appointment was belated. The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 contains provision empowering the State Government/Appointing Authority to condone the delay in cases where the authority is satisfied. Here in the present case, the delay for not making application by the petitioner within the prescribed time was due to underage and after attaining the age of majority, the application was made by the petitioner. It was sufficient reason to condone the delay. 4. Therefore, respondents are directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made above. The writ petition is disposed of finally with the aforesaid observation/direction. No order as to costs. Prabodh (P.C. Verma, J.)