IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No.311/2004 Surendera Singh Negi ………… Petitioner Versus Addl. Secretary, A.H.F. & others ………. Respondents. …………………… Sri. B.S. Adhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri. H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Date: Sep. 11, 2008. Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. Late Sri Dayal Singgh Negi, father of the petitioner was working on class IV post under the Chief Veterinary Officer, Chamoli (Gopeshwar), who died in harness on 12-02-1982. On 5-11-1982 the mother of the petitioner Smt. Saati Devi moved an application before the concerned authority with a request that his son/petitioner may be given appointment on compassionate ground under the Dying in Harness Rules as and when he attains the age of majority. Thereafter on attaining the age of majority petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground. The appointment under the Dying Harness Rules was denied to the petitioner vide order dated 7-09-1999 on the ground that the petitioner’s application is belated one and, therefore, barred by the limitation. The date of birth of the petitioner is 11-06-1982. Undisputedly the petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father and immediately after attaining the age of majority, petitioner applied for his compassionate appointment which rejected only on one ground that it was a belated one and hence time barred. 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. 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.V., J.) 11-09-2008 Bhasker