- (1.) H. L. Gokhale, CJ. Heard Sri B. P Singh in support of this appeal. Sri R. K. Mishra appears for the respondent No. 1 and Sri Pankaj Rai appears for the respondent No. 2.
(2.) THE appellants seek to challenge the order dated 12. 7. 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition of the first respondent has been allowed. The short facts leading to this appeal are that the father of the first respondent was working under the U. P. Power Corporation whose Chairman-cum-Man-aging Director has filed this appeal. Father of the respondent No. 1 died. while in service on 16th October, 1991. The respondent No. 1 was minor at that time. He became major on 30th June, 1997. He applied for compassionate appointment under the Corporation just within a month thereafter i. e. on 23ed July, 1997. His application came to be considered and an appointment order was issued on 14th February, 2001 which was nearly 3-1/2 years thereafter. The appointment came to be cancelled subsequently on 19th February, 2002. This order of cancellation led to the filing of the petition by the first respondent. During the pendency of the petition, the cancellation of appointment was stayed. When the petition was finally heard by the learned Single Judge the appellant herein submitted that the application for employment made by the respondent No. 1 was beyond 5 years from the death of his father and under Regulation 5 of the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board Recruitment of Dependants of Board's Servants Dying in Harness Regulations, 1975 as amended on 22. 1. 1998, the person concerned had to make application within 5 years. The learned Judge did not entertain this submission and allowed the petition. Hence this appeal.
(3.) SRI B. P Singh has drawn our attention to the relevant Regulations. The Regulation as amended on 22nd January, 1998 requires one to make an application for employment within 5 years from the date of death of the Board's servant. The concerned clause of the Regulation has however a proviso, which reads as follows: " Provided that where the Board is satisfied that the time limit fixed for making the application for employment causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may dispense with or relax the requirement as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. " Thus, the proviso grants power of relaxation where the Board is satisfied that the time limit for making an application would cause undue hardship in the particular case. In the present case, undoubtedly the respondent No. 1 could not have applied when he was minor. It is only when he became major he could apply, which he did so within a month. That application had thus come to be entertained by the appellants.;