The discretion vested in the authorities to condone delay under the Dying in Harness Rules should be exercised reasonably, considering the circumstances of the case.

J.S. Khehar, J.

The claim of the respondent Arun Sharma for appointment on compassionate grounds under the Dying in Harness Rules was not acceded to. It is, therefore, that he approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/B) No.72 of 2002. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 04.04.2008.

2. Through the instant special appeal, the appellant i.e. the Uttarakhand State Road Transport Corporation has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the respondents to re-consider the claim of the petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) for appointment on compassionate grounds.

3. The undisputed factual position is, that the father of the respondent - Arun Kumar died on 26.02.1994. The respondent’s mother made a representation on 28.05.1994 to her husband’s employer i.e. the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds for her son, on his attaining the age of majority. The respondent-Arun Sharma, having been born on 11.01.1981 was to attain majority on 11.01.1999. On attaining majority, the respondent Arun Sharma himself addressed a representation dated 04.06.1999 to the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. This claim at the hands of the respondent was not considered, inasmuch as, no order, one way or the other, was passed by the authorities. It is, therefore, that the respondent approached this Court, by filing Writ Petition (S/B) No. 72 of 2002. In the counter affidavit filed by the appellant, it was asserted at the hands of the appellant, that the respondent-Arun Sharma had raised a claim for appointment on compassionate grounds, after a long delay of five years, and as such, was not entitled to consideration under the Dying in Harness Rules.

4. The same submission, as was made before the learned Single Judge, has been made before us. Besides the sole submission of delay no other submission has been advanced on behalf of the appellant, to assail the order dated 04.04.2008.

5. The learned Single Judge had found hardly any justification in the aforesaid plea, because the father of the respondent - Arun Sharma had died on 26.02.1994, and in less than three months thereof, the respondent’s mother had made a representation on his behalf for appointment on compassionate grounds. The respondent’s mother, in her representation, had also disclosed that the respondent was a minor, and as such, her request for appointment on compassionate grounds, should be considered on his acquiring the age of majority. Thereafter, the respondent - Arun Sharma acquired the age of majority on 11.01.1999 whereupon he himself moved a representation for appointment on compassionate grounds on 04.06.1999. Herein again the representation was filed by the respondent - Arun Sharma, only a few months after attaining age of majority. In the aforesaid view of the matter, learned Single Judge was of the view, that the claim of appointment on compassionate grounds having been made at the hands of the mother of the respondent only a few months after the death of his father, and now again just a few months after the respondent acquired the age of majority, the delay, if any, was liable to be condoned under provisions which were a part of the Dying in Harness Rules.

6. Despite the aforesaid determination at the hands of the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends, that the determination of the learned Single Judge cannot be accepted as just and proper, in view of the recent decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Santosh Kumar Dubey versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 481. We have perused the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Apex Court. In our view, the following observations recorded therein are relevant, to determine whether or not, the same is applicable to the present controversy:-

“11. The very concept of givin