- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. The petitioner's father, while in service under the respondents, died on 7th August, 1975. The petitioner alleges that he was born on 8th July, 1975. Only after attainment of majority, he is claiming appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules. One of the ground as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner could not apply under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 because he did not attain majority until 1993. Therefore, he should be given the benefit now.
(2.) THE said Rule envisaged to mitigate the hardship that befall on the family on account of death. THE hardship is a rela tive thing having relation with the period and time. THE same cannot continue for an indefinite period waiting the attainment of majority of an incumbent, that too for a long period as in the present case. THEn again by virtue of amendment carried out in 1993 in the said Rule, the period has been cir cumscribed by limiting the same by 5 years. After having heard Mr. Rajeev Shar ma and the learned Standing Counsel, it appears that in the present case, no. relief can be granted because of the time inter vened in between. Neither the opportunity can wait till the attainment of majority of the incumbent, nor the same could be con sidered after five years after the amendment has been carried out. The widow of the deceased could have availed of the oppor tunity, but she did not do so. The Rule also provides for the benefit to the widow as well. The right which was available to the widow having not been availed of, the same cannot be claimed by the son after such long lapse of time. In that view of the matter, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .;