MANOJ KUMAR SAXENA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri R.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel.

(2.) The petitioner's father died in the year 1987. At that time, the petitioner was a minor, being 12 years old and, consequently upon reaching the age of majority, applied for appointment on compassionate grounds under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules,1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1974), in the year 1993. Since there was a delay in moving the application, the matter was referred to the State Government. The State Government, after considering the matter, rejected the petitioner's application on the ground that it was belated. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed a writ petition, which was allowed by a judgement dated 23rd February, 2000. The writ court held that the delay could be condoned under the Rules and accordingly quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter again to the Authority concerned to redecide the matter. The District Magistrate, by the impugned order dated 20th August, 2003, has again rejected the application on the ground of delay. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the opinion that the District Magistrate had no authority to reject the application on the ground of delay. The application can be condoned under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974 which provides that the delay can be condoned only by the State Government. In the instant case, the matter was earlier referred to the State Government, which it refused to condone the delay and the same was questioned by the High Court. The High Court had categorically stated that there was no undue delay and that the rejection of the application for appointment had caused undue hardship to the petitioner. In spite of these specific directions being issued by the High Court in its earlier judgement, the District Magistrate had the gall and cheek to reject the petitioner's application on the same ground, which had already been quashed by the High Court. Such attitude of the District Magistrate was totally unwarranted and could not be justified.