COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 1935/2003 Chandra Shekhar …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal through Secretary, Medical Health & Family Welfare, Dehradun & Others …….Respondents Sri Rajendra Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 13th 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 orders dated 6.5.2003 & 30.5.2003, Annexure No. 22 & 23 to the writ petition respectively, 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. Petitioner’s mother late Smt. Prem Lata Saini was working on the post of A.N.M. at Primary Health Centre, Bahadrabad, Haridwar, who died in harness on 16.12.1989. At the time of death of his mother, the petitioner was a minor. The date of birth of the petitioner is 3.8.1980. On attaining the age of majority and after qualifying his Intermediate Examination, the petitioner applied vide his application dated 10.3.2000 for compassionate appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness 2 Rules, 1974. Similar request was also made by the father of the petitioner for compassionate appointment of the petitioner vide his letter dated 10.3.2000. But the appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules was denied to the petitioner by the impugned orders on the ground that the petitioner’s application was belated one and, therefore, barred by the limitation. 3. Undisputedly the petitioner was a minor at the time of death of his mother. After attaining the age of majority, application dated 10.3.2000 was moved on behalf of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. After so much official correspondence, the case of the petitioner for compassionate 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. (P.C. Verma, J.) 13.5.2008 Prabodh