JUDGMENT

Ajay Bhanot, J.

Heard Shri Deepak Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner claims that he is entitled for appointment, under the Dying-in-Harness Rules. The petitioner has made several representations on 21/26.12.2006, 0309.2007 and 15.11.2007 for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds.

3. The submission of 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 father 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.

4. 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 her father.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Certain facts relevant for the judgement are established beyond the pale of dispute.

7. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 09.02.2003. The petitioner made an application for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds on 21/26.12.2006. Delay in making the application for appointment on compassionate grounds is defended on the sole ground that on the date of death of the father of the petitioner the petitioner was minor. The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds when he attained majority.

8. This is the admitted case of the petitioner.

9. 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").

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

11. 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 the kin of a deceased employee into one class and on the footing alone the rationale of compassionate ground appointments was justified.

12. It would be apposite to reinforce the narrative with good authority.

13. The purpose of compassionate appointments provides their justification. The death of a bread winner forces the family of the deceased into penury. The immediacy of the financial crisis