JAI PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUNIL Ambwani, J. Heard Counsel for petitioner and Sri Sameer Sharma for respondents.

(2.) IN view of the facts and circumstances of the case, parties have agreed that the writ petition be decided at this stage.

(3.) SRI Sameer Sharma, on the other hand, states and compassionate appointment is given to tide over immediate financial crises. The application cannot be entertained after about 9 years, and that the petitioner slept over his rights. He submit that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15-2-1999 after three years and that the delay has not been adequately explained. In the present case U. P. Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 are applicable. The petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment immediately after he became major. It was recommended by the Assistant Regional Manager on 8-1-1999. The Regional Manager has wrongly treated the date of recommendation as the date of application. Under the Rules of 1974, the power to condone the delay beyond 5 years is with the State Government. In the present case Board of Director of the Corporation is the highest authority. Although under Section 4 of the U. P. Road Transport Corporation Act, the State Government can give general or special direction to the Corporation, the authority to take final decision vests in the Board of Directors who have delegated certain powers to Managing Director. The Board of Director being the highest authority in the Corporation, is competent to consider the condonation of delay beyond five years for compassionate appointment.