MANOJ KUMAR GAUTAM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Pallavi Dube, Advocate, holding brief on behalf of Mr. Rajendra Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State counsel for opposite parties.

(2.) Petition has been filed challenging order dtd. 19/7/2022 and the consequential order dtd. 31/10/2022 whereby application of petitioner for compassionate appointment in lieu of services rendered by his father, late Ramadhar Ram, has been rejected.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner's father while posted in the Armed Police in Lucknow passed away in harness on 21/5/2011 leaving behind his widow and the petitioner his son. It is submitted that at the time of demise of his father, petitioner was a minor aged 13 years and his mother being not in a position to join a Police Department filed an application dtd. 12/2/2012 reserving the right of compassionate appointment to her son that is the petitioner once he attained the age of majority. It is submitted that in pursuance thereof, by means of letter dtd. 3/5/2012, the authorities indicated that since by the time petitioner obtained the age of majority, the time period of 5 years stipulated in the Dying-in- Harness Rules, 1974 would be over, such a consideration could only be made by the State Government.