COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) 72/2002 Arun Sharma …….Petitioner Versus Managing Director, U.P.S.R.T.C. & Other …….Respondents Sri A.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Sangeeta Miyan, Advocate holding brief of Sr. V.K. Bist, learned Counsel for the respondents. 4th 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 Driver in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, who died in harness on 26.2.1994. The petitioner’s mother requested the respondent no. 2 vide her letter dated 28.5.1994 contained as Annexure No. 1 to appoint the petitioner on attainment of his majority. Thereafter, on attaining the age of majority, the petitioner applied for his appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules vide his application dated 4.6.1999, which is contained as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. He again requested the authorities for consideration of his appointment vide his application dated 18.2.2000 contained as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. The appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules was denied on the ground that the petitioner had applied after the lapse of five years. 3. Undisputedly the petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father. Mother of the petitioner had already requested the authorities to consider the petitioner for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules on attainment of his majority. The date of birth of the petitioner is 11.1.1981 and immediately after attaining the age of majority he had applied for his appointment on 4.6.1999. Therefore, there was no reason to deny the appointment to the petitioner on the ground of delay. 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 immediately 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