Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the oppo­site parties.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 07.05.2008, contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition, by which application of the pe­titioner for appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependent of Gov­ernment Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 1974") has been rejected on the ground that the application dated 08.03.2002 was moved for appointment after nine years of death of the petitioner's father. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus for commanding the opposite party No.5 to consider the griev­ance of the petitioner in light of Government Order dated 28.07.2006.

3. Brief facts of the case, as culled out from the pleadings of the writ petition, are that fa­ther of the petitioner was working as Cook in 26th Battalion P.A.C. Gorakhpur and during the course of employment he died on 23.02.1993. At the relevant time, the peti­tioner was minor and his mother Smt. Prabha Devi made an application just after the death of her husband for appointment of her son under the Rules, 1974. The concerned Au­thority assured her that on attaining the age of majority of her son, his candidature will be considered. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that vide letter dated 13.10.1994, the Commandant informed the petitioner's mother that appointment can be provided to one of the family members within five years from the date of the death of an employee. On attaining the age of majority by his son, the petitioner's mother met the Commandant on 15.02.1998 and again on 18.02.1998 for appointment of the petitioner as time of five years was going to expire. The Commandant assured the mother of the peti­tioner that let the petitioner complete his High School then his case will be considered but nothing was given in writing by the Comman­dant. Since the mother of the petitioner could not afford the burden of family, the petitioner left his studies after completing Class-IX in the year 1997-98. The petitioner and his mother met the concerned authorities again and gave an application on 15.02.2003. On 13.12.2006,the petitioner again contacted the Commandant 26th Battalion, P.A.C., who advised the petitioner to give a fresh applica­tion to him and, accordingly, fresh applica­tion was submitted on the same day.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Commandant vide letter dated 23.11.2006 sought various docu­ments, which were immediately submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter, the Commandant 26th Battalion, P.A.C., Gorakhpur also in­quired as to why the petitioner did not give application within five years of the death of the employee. The Commandant 26th Bat­talion, P.A.C. Gorakhpur vide letter dated 01.09.2008 asked for related documents of the petitioner and immediately after receiv­ing the said letter, petitioner sent all the re­lated documents to the Commandant 26th Battalion P.A.C., Gorakhpur on 27.09.2008. The Commandant 26th Battalion P.A.C., Gorakhpur vide letter dated 07.05.2009 in­formed the petitioner that the State Govern­ment vide its letter dated 23.04.2009 has in­formed that since application for appointment as a dependent of the deceased employee has been moved after nine years, the State Gov­ernment has not found any cogent reason to grant relaxation in the time limit for making application.

5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the record of the depart­ment itself shows that mother of the petitioner applied under Dying in Harness Rules just after the death of his father in the year 1994 and thereafter, again in the year 1998, that was also within five years. Thereafter, the pe­titioner approached the opposite parties after attaining the age of majority and, as such, re­jection of the candidature

Click Here to Read the rest of this document