COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 3279/2001 Dharam Singh Chaudhari …….Petitioner Versus Director, Horticulture & Food Processing And Others …….Respondents Sri B.S. Adhikari, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 3rd 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 Dying in Harness Rules. 2. The father of the petitioner was working as a Mali, who died in harness on 9.4.1987. The petitioner’s mother is paralytic and an illiterate lady. At the time of death of his father, the petitioner was a minor. Thereafter, on attaining the age of majority, the petitioner applied for his appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules vide his application dated 14.3.1997. The appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules was denied to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner’s application is belated one and, therefore, barred by the limitation. 3. Undisputedly the petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father. Petitioner was only 9 years old at the time of death of his father and after attaining the age of majority and passing his high school examination, he had applied for his appointment on 14.3.1997. 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 time was due to underage and after attaining the age, the application was made. 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.) Prabodh