IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINIAL Writ Petition No. 1725 (S/S) of 2007 Vivek Kumar, S/o Late Sri Nirankar Singh, R/o Village – Naya Gaon, P.O. –Naugaonwa Sadat, Police Station- Naugaonwa Sadat, District Jyotiba Phule Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, ………….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……………Respondents. Sri Gaurishankar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel, for the petitioner. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner under U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (applicable to Stat of Uttarakhand), after giving necessary relaxation. (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties. (3) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner’s father Nirankar Singh, who was a Contract with U.P. Police, while posted in District Haridwar, died on 17.11.1997 (during service). At that point of time the petitioner was a minor. He sought appointment on compassionate ground under the aforesaid Rules of 1974. It appears that since the application for appointment was moved after a period of five years of death of the employee, as such the same was rejected by the authorities concerned. (4) Thereafter, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 388 (S/S) of 2007, before this Court, which was disposed of by this Court vide dated 17.04.2007 with the direction that respondent no. 1 (State of Uttarakhand through its Secretary Home) may take a decision on the representation dated 12.02.2007 of the petitioner. (5) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner had to come back to the Court for the reason that no orders are passed by the Government of Uttarakhand on the representation of the petitioner relating to relaxation for time limit fixed under Rules. (6) The relevant proviso of Rule 5 of U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, reads as under:- “Provided that where the State Government is satisfied that the time-limit fixed for making the application for employment causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may be dispense with or relax the requirement as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. (7) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the affidavit and counter affidavit filed on their behalf, this Court finds that vide letter No. 443/XX(3)-78/fjV fiVh0/2007, dated 15th October 2007 (a copy of which is Annexure CA-4 to the counter affidavit, file on behalf of the respondents), the Under Secretary of Government of Uttarakhand has simply sent back the representation of the petitioner to Director General of Police to pass appropriate order in pursuance to the Gover5nment Order No. 225/Karmik-2-2002, dated 8.2.2002. The perusal of said order simply shows how negligently the Government has dealt the matter. The respondent no. 1 in Writ Petition No. 388 (S/S) of 2007 is State of Uttarakhand (and not the Director General of Police). The direction was given by the Court in its order dated 17.04.2007 in aforesaid writ petition to the Government and not to the Director General of Police. In the Circumstances, it appears that the respondent no. 1 has unnecessarily compelled the petitioner to knock the doors of this Court again. The power to relax the time limit for seeking appointment on compassionate ground lies with the Government and not with the Director General of Police or any one subordinate to it. (8) Learned counsel fort the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the Notification No. 6/12/73/Karmik-2/2006, Lucknow dated 28th July 2006, whereby in the successor State of Uttar Pradesh now amendment has been made in Rule 5 of U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. He has further drawn attention of this Court to the directions issued by the Directorate of Police vide its letter No. 18/A-(7th Amendment/Mri.Aa.) 2006, dated September 24, 2006 to the subordinate authorities in the successor State of Uttar Pradesh. In the opinion of this Court neither the successor State of Uttar Pradesh is a party in this petition nor 7th Amendment referred above, of the year 2006, is applicable in the State of Uttarakhand, as such no direction can be given to the State of Uttar Pradesh. (9) Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that respondent no. 1 shall take a decision on the representation of the petitioner relating to relaxation as to the time limit in moving the application for appointment on compassionate ground within a period of three months form the date of certified copy of this order is produced by the petitioner before the said authority. The petitioner is at liberty to make request to respondent no. 1 for referring his case to the State of Uttar Pradesh, as the father of the petitioner died before the creation of State of Uttarakhand. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 03.06.2008 NS