Hon’ble D.P. Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This petition is directed against an order dated 4th December, 2002 rejecting the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as time-barred under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).

3. The father of the petitioner was a Sub-Inspector in the civil police when he died in harness on 19.11.1994. As the family was in great financial distress, his mother moved an application dated 28.2.1995 for appointment of the petitioner on any post. The respondent No. 4 vide his letter dated 6.10.1995 informed her that the petitioner was only 16 years old and, therefore, without attaining the age of 18 years, he could not be appointed, but offered appointment to his mother, but in the meantime, his mother also expired. After completing his Bachelor’s degree the petitioner applied on 24/25.8.1999 for compassionate appointment, as his family continued to be in financial distress and was burdened with an unmarried sister. On the basis of his application, the office of Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment) sought a report from the Superintendent of Police with regard to compassionate appointment of the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police vide his letter dated 8.11.1999 forwarded the entire relevant documents and report with his recommendation for appointment of the petitioner as Sub-Inspector in the Civil Police on compassionate grounds. However, he was informed vide letter dated 7.12.2000 that he had yet not completed 21 years of age and as such he could not be appointed as Sub-Inspector, Civil Police, though he was offered appointment as Sub-Inspector (Ministerial), but vide his letter dated 6.1.2001 the petitioner informed the respondents that he is awaiting action from the office of the Chief Minister, where he had submitted his case for consideration. By order dated 17.10.2001 the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that it was raised after five years and in view of the Rules, no relaxation could be granted in his case. This information was conveyed to the petitioner through a covering letter dated 20th December, 2001. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid decision through Writ Petition No. 44477 of 2001 and this Court vide order dated 3.1.2002 directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner with regard to grant of relaxation in accordance with the Rules. In pursuance thereof, the present impugned order has been passed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that firstly, his mother in 1995 itself and secondly, the petitioner himself in August, 1999 had made the application for compassionate appointment, therefore, there was no question of grant of any relaxation in the 5 years period fixed in the Rules. The argument appears to be correct.

5. There is no denial either in the counter affidavit or in the impugned order that for the first time the mother of the petitioner had made an application on 28.2.1995 for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner but as he was a minor he could not be appointed, however, having attained majority, the petitioner himself had moved an application on 24/25th August, 1999 and this application was duly processed, but the claim for appointment as Sub-Inspector in Civil Police was rejected as he was only twenty years old and the offer of appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) was made. It is not denied that the date of birth of the petitioner is 6.10.1979 and when his claim for appointment was rejected on 7.12.2000 he had already attained the age of 21 years.

6. Let us examine the validity of the impugned order, vis-a-vis, the Rules. The object of the Rules is to provide compassionate appointment to one member of the family whose sole bread earner dies in harness. It is in the nature of beneficial leg