COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 4325/2001 Vinod Kumar …….Petitioner Versus Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Kumaun Region, Nainital & Others …….Respondents Sri C.D. Bahuguna, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri V.K. Bist, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri V.K. Kaparwan, learned Counsel for the respondents. 30th April, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. 2. Petitioner’s father late Sri Mohan Lal was working on the post of Assistant Mechanic in the office of the respondents at Nainital, who died in harness in the year 1981. At the time of death of his father, the petitioner was a minor. The date of birth of the petitioner is 25.8.1976. On attaining the age of majority, the petitioner applied vide his application dated 7.8.1995 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) for compassionate appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. Thereafter in pursuance of the letter dated 23.2.1996 issued by the respondent no. 1/Regional Manager, 2 U.P.S.R.T.C., Nainital, the petitioner appeared for interview before the Selection Committee on 8.3.1996. Respondent no. 1 vide his letter dated 23.2.1996, reiterated by the letter dated 18.3.1996, informed the petitioner that his name has been placed at serial no. 1 of the seniority list meant for appointments under dying in harness rule. Thereafter repeated requests were made by the petitioner, but till date he has not been appointed. These facts have not been disputed in the counter affidavit. 3. In the counter affidavit, it has been contended on behalf of the respondents that the appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules was denied to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner’s application was belated one and, therefore, barred by the limitation. 4. Undisputedly the petitioner was a minor at the time of death of his father. Immediately after attaining the age of majority, application dated 7.8.1995 was moved on behalf of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. But the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected only on one ground that his application for appointment was belated. Rule 5 of 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. 3 5. 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.) 30.4.2008 Prabodh