JUDGMENT :

1. The father of petitioner, who was working as Conductor in the respondent Corporation,[U.P. State Road Transport Corporation], died-in-harness on 30.07.2000. The petitioner, who is the eldest son of the deceased employee - late Sushil Kumar Singh, was minor at that time, therefore, his mother moved an application informing the authorities about the petitioner’s age and requested that the claim for his compassionate appointment may be considered when he attains majority. In this respect, the petitioner’s mother again submitted an application on 22.09.2002. After the petitioner attained majority, an application requesting for compassionate appointment was placed before the respondent no. 3,[Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Moradabad Region, Moradabad] on 12.01.2006, pursuant to which by order dated 14.09.2007 appointment on contractual basis as Conductor under the Dying-in-Harness quota was given to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner not being aware of the settled position of law regarding nature of appointment offered under compassionate ground, joined pursuant to the aforesaid appointment order on contractual basis and has now approached this Court submitting that the petitioner could not have been appointed on contractual basis under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974,[The Rules, 1974], on compassionate ground, as per the settled position of law. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on a judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Senior General Manager, Ordinance Factory, Kalpi Road, Kanpur v. Central Administrative Tribunal and another, 2016 (2) ADJ 751 : 2016 0 AIR (All) 89 : 2016 0 Supreme (All) 72, and a judgement of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ravi Karan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh,Laws (ALL) 1999 2 35 : C.M.W.P. 39127 of 1997.

3. Mr. Dharmendra Dhar Dubey, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 to 4 submits that now the petitioner cannot turn around and challenge the appointment accepted on contractual basis, after the delay of so many years from the date of joining.

4. It has been experienced that in some cases the responsible Government authorities exercise its discretion travelling beyond not only statutory provisions of the rules, which are framed to safeguard the interest of person in destitution like the petitioner and his family herein, who have been in penury due to sad demise of the sole breadwinner (petitioner’s father), but also they frequently act in defiance of the settled position of law. Authorities often remain oblivious to the law of the land, which resultantly floods a number of cases in the court and ultimately clogs its roster.

5. The State and its instrumentalities are presumed to act fairly and reasonably in terms of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and to protect the interest of the public at large especially at the time of discharging the duties towards those who are not aware of nuances of law and procedure.

6. Dealing with the functioning of the Government authorities, the Apex Court in the case of Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner v. Mohan Lal, (2010) 1 SCC 512 : 2009 SCC OnLine SC 1754, has observed that the State Governments should make efforts to eliminate unnecessary litigation. Vexatious and unnecessary litigations are clogging the wheels of justice for too long, making it difficult for the courts to provide easy and speedy access to justice to bona fide and needy litigants.

7. Going through the circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner who is not too educated to be expected being aware of the intricacies of prevailing law and the rules applicable for appointment on compassionate ground. Though, the respondent authorities were under legal obligation to exercise their functions with due diligence and it was incumbent upon the Department/ respondent Corporation, not to issue such an appoin