ORDER :

Ajay Bhanot, J.

1. Heard Ms. Manisha Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioners claims, that he is entitled for appointment, under the dying-in-harness rules. The petitioner has made, several representations on 08.02.2015, 06.05.2017, 09.07.2017, 15.11.2017 and lastly on 11.10.2018, for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds. However, the same has not been decided till date.

3. The prayer made by the petitioner, is for a direction to the authorities, to decide his representation dated 11.10.2018, for appointment on compassionate grounds.

4. The submission of Ms. Manisha Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner could not apply for appointment, on compassionate grounds, in the immediate aftermath of the death of his mother, since he was minor at that point in time. The petitioner applied for appointment after he attained majority. The petitioner cannot be faulted, for the delay, on his part in making such application. Her prayer is that, the claim of the petitioner, for appointment under dying-in-harness rules, may be decided within a stipulated period of time.

5. Learned Standing Counsel raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that the petition is barred by delay and laches. No satisfactory explanation to the delay and laches on part of the petitioner, in approaching this court has been made in the writ petition. He submits, that the delay in making the claim for appointment is not liable to be condoned. The family of the petitioner, did not face any immediate financial crisis, upon the death of his mother.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

7. Certain facts relevant for the judgment are established beyond the pale of dispute.

8. The mother of the petitioner was working on the post of Peon in the Nazarat, Collectorate, Gorakhpur. She died in harness on 18.10.1999. The petitioner was a minor, at the time of the death of his mother. Petitioner claims, that he attained majority, in the year 2003.

9. The petitioner submitted an application, for grant of appointment, on compassionate grounds, for the first time on 13.07.2007. Thereafter several applications, were submitted by the petitioner, on 06.05.2017 and 11.10.2018, before the authority concerned. The respondent authorities, did not act upon his claim, and failed to appoint him, under the "U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974".

10. The petitioner approached this Court by instituting the instant writ petition, on 28.05.2019, with a prayer to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 11.10.2018. The said representation of the petitioner, for appointment on compassionate grounds was moved almost 19 years after the death of the mother of the petitioner. The writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner, almost 20 years after the death of his mother.

11. This is the admitted case of the petitioner.

12. Grant of appointment on compassionate grounds in the respondent corporation is regulated and governed by the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the "Dying in Harness Rules").

13. The concept of dying in harness is unique to Service Law Jurisprudence.

14. The validity of the concept of appointments on the basis of an employee dying in harness was called in question before the courts. The constitutional validity of the aforesaid appointments soon came to be tested. The compassionate ground appointments passed the test of constitutional validity by a slender margin. The justification to make compassionate ground appointments was provided on the footing that the kin of the deceased stood on the brink of financial penury or faced an immediate financial crisis on account of the death of working member of the family. This feature alone constituted th