Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.

2. The petitioner claiming himself to be an adopted son of late Naubahar Singh has filed this writ petition with the following prayer :

(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the case of the petitioner about giving service under Dying-in-Harness Rules.

(ii) Issue any suitable writ, order or direction of this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. It is contended that the father of the petitioner died on 28.12.1997 and after his death, the petitioner had filed an application on 6.1.1998 before the respondent No. 2, Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Dhampur, District-Bijnor for appointment on compassionate ground under the provisions of U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1974’). The claim of the petitioner has yet not been decided by the respondent No. 2.

4. It is also submitted that The Rules of 1974 has been framed with a view to provide immediate financial assistance by providing job to a dependent of the family of deceased employee with a view to mitigate the hardship which has fallen on the family of the deceased employee. Rule 5 of 1974 Rule Provides that one dependent of the deceased family is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment after the death of an employee.

5. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 2 in which it is stated that a succession case is pending in between the petitioner and the elder brother of the deceased ( the respondent No. 3) Sri Chandra Pal Singh and the said case has yet not been decided. therefore, the application of the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage. It is also stated that the said adoption deed has also been challenged by the elder brother of the deceased, therefore, the application of the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage.

6. Further the application of the petitioner is not on the proper format,as alongwith the application the required documents such as educational qualification, date of birth, character certificate and income certificate etc has not been given. It is further submitted that the adopted son cannot be said to be eligible under the Rules of 1974 for compassionate ground and after a such long delay the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment is not worth while to consider.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Rajendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

8. From the perusal of the record as well as the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the petitioner is a adopted son of late Naubahar Singh who was an employee of Uttar Pradesh Electricity Board (now Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation) who died-in-harness while in service on 28.12.1997. After the death of father, the petitioner has filed an application in January, 1998 seeking an appointment on compassionate ground under the Rules of 1974 but no decision has been taken on the aforesaid application by the respondents. From the perusal of record and rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I find that following questions would arise to decide this case

(1) Whether because of the pendency of the case challenging the adoption deed as well as for obtaining the succession certificate, the petitioner’s appointment on compassionate ground could be left pending till the decision of those cases.

(II) Whether it was proper on the part of the respondents to sit over the matter for a such long time merely for the reason that the application did not contain the details of qualif