Rajnish Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard, Shri Lalendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anil Chaubey, learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) Brief facts of the case, as emerge from the pleading, for disposal of the present writ petition are that the father of the petitioner had died during service on 01.08.1997. The mother of the petitioner had applied in the year 1998 for compassionate appointment and moved several representations but no decision was taken thereon. However with the efflux of time she was not willing for employment. Therefore the whole family decided for suitable employment of the petitioner on compassionate ground under dying-in-harness rules. It appears that some representation was preferred by her before the State Government and in response to the quarry of the State Government, the Superintendent of Police, Karmik, U.P., while sending the information vide letter dated 23.09.1998 stated that the required information is being sought from the concerned department and after receipt of the same, it would be provided. At endorsement no.4 of the said letter, the mother of the petitioner was asked that if she wants employment or for any of her son or daughter then she may contact to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow / CBCID, Lucknow. The petitioner, after attaining the age of majority on 28.03.2001 preferred an application? for compassionate appointment. The mother of the petitioner had also submitted an affidavit dated 06.12.2001 stating therein that she has no objection in appointment of petitioner on compassionate ground. After completing his high school in the year 2004, the petitioner again preferred his application before the concerned authorities for suitable employment. The petitioner has completed his B.A in the year 2009.
(3.) The respondents considered the application of the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to appear before the Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow for medical examination by means of the letter dated 22.02.2005. In pursuance thereof the petitioner appeared before the Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow and his medical was conducted. The matter was referred to the State Government in view of proviso to the Rule-5 of 'The U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974' for relaxation being beyond five years. The State Government rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had applied on 30.07.2004, after seven years of death of his father and after considering the financial condition of the family found that the petitioner is not eligible for relaxation. Accordingly in pursuance thereof the impugned order dated 14.06.2010 was passed by means of which the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. Therefore the petitioner has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition.;