RAKESH TIWARI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
(2.) THIS special appeal has been filed for quashing of the order and judgment dated 11.6.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29665 of 2007, Mukesh Kumar versus State of U.P. and others, whereby the aforesaid writ petition had been dismissed. It appears from the record filed along with this special appeal that Charan Singh died during the course of his employment on 28.12.1986. His widow had applied for appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ' 1974 Rules') vide her application dated 12.2.88 appended as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. From perusal of Annexure-4, letter dated 29.2.1988 issued by respondent no.3, Executive Engineer (Public Works Department) Temporary Division, Mathura it appears that she was advised not to come to the office again and again and should contact the authority in the department for compassionate appointment under 1974 Rules after her son attains majority and thereafter the process for taking him in service would be initiated.
(3.) IN the aforesaid circumstances, appellant Mukesh Kumar after attaining the majority moved the concerned department vide Annexure-5 to the writ petition and prayed for compassionate appointment. It appears that his application for compassionate appointment was rejected by the authority on the ground of delay. In the circumstances, the appellant was compelled to prefer Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2962 of 2005, Mukesh Kumar versus State of U.P. and others, which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 24.1.2005. It reads thus:- " Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel. It is contended that petitioner's father late Sri Charan Singh was serving as regular Beldar and died in harness on 18.12.1986. The petitioner's mother had made an application requesting for compassionate appointment on which she was told that when her son attains the age of majority the department may consider him for compassionate appointment. The petitioner attained the age of majority in the year 2001 and soon-after he approached the respondents repeatedly but without any response. The petitioner's application for compassionate appointment is required to be considered under the proviso to Rule 5 of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. It has been stated that the family is still suffering from extreme poverty. From the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the petitioner's application is required to be considered under the Rules by the State Government. Let the application and all relevant documents available in the office of respondent no.2 be sent by him to the respondent no.1 within one month. The respondent no.1 will thereafter consider the question of delay and the claim for compassionate appointment. The decision in this regard shall be taken within two months from the date of the communication of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of." ;