COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 546/2004 Kamal Kishore Joshi …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal & Others …….Respondents Sri B.D. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 & 2. Smt. Bina Pande, learned Standing Counsel (UP) for the respondent no.3. 23th May, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 15.9.2004, Annexure No. 1 to the supplementary affidavit, whereby the petitioner was denied the appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules on the ground of delay. The petitioner has further 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 Mahesh Chandra Joshi was a Clerk, who died in harness on 7.6.1996. At the time of death of his father, the petitioner was a minor. The date of birth of the petitioner is 23.10.1982. On 14.8.1996, the mother of the petitioner made an application to the Director, Information, Lucknow that the petitioner who is her elder son may be appointed on compassionate ground after attaining the age of majority. On attaining the age of majority, the petitioner applied 2 vide his application dated 18.2.2002 for compassionate appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. When no reply was received by the petitioner in response to his aforementioned application, the petitioner made another application dated 23.5.2002 for his appointment on the compassionate grounds. Similar request was made by the petitioner vide his applications dated 6.6.2002 and 14.4.2003. Thereafter, vide letter of the Joint Director, Information & Public Relation Department, Uttaranchal, Dehradun dated 17.6.2003, the petitioner was asked to furnish his explanation as to why he did not apply within prescribed time of five years. The petitioner furnished his explanation vide his letter dated 22.7.2003. But the appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules was denied to the petitioner by the impugned order dated 15.9.2004 on the ground that the petitioner’s application was belated one and, therefore, barred by the limitation. These facts have not been disputed in the counter affidavit. 3. Undisputedly the petitioner was a minor at the time of death of his father. Immediately after the death of the petitioner’s father, an application dated 14.8.1996 was moved on behalf of his mother for compassionate appointment to the petitioner as and when he attains the age of majority. After attaining the age of majority, application dated 18.2.2002 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 3 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. 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.) 23.5.2008 Prabodh