MITHILESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is claiming for appointment pursuant to the Government Order dated 29.2.1996 and 28.12.1973. THE petitioner had applied for such appointment for the first time on 17.2.1998, whereas the land was acquired in 1982. THE petitioner has alleged that he was born on 1.7.1978, therefore, on the date of acquisition of land, the petitioner was four years old. Since his case was not acceded to the petitioner had moved a Writ Petition No. 7693 of 1998 which was disposed of on 5.3.1998 by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's case in terms of the Government Order. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner's case was considered by order dated 14.5.1998 being Annexure-4 to the writ petition. THE said order is supported by reason to the extent that the land was acquired in 1982 when the petitioner was minor having born on 1.7.1978 and had applied for the post only on 17.2.1998.

(2.) THE said Government Order was in existence since 1973 as indicated above but no application was made for these long 16 years. THE said provision was introduced to save a family from immediate destitution on account of loss of livelihood because of such acquisition of the property. After 16 years, it cannot be said that the petitioner suffers destitution on account of such acquisition which was effected some time in 1982 for which compensation was paid long back to his father. It does not appear that the petitioner's father who could have applied under the said provision, had applied for or not. If he has not applied, the right which he had accrued, appears to have been waived and the petitioner was being minor at that time cannot claim to continue with such right and it may not survive for such a long time waiting the petitioner for attainment of majority. After having gone through the impugned order. I do not find any infirmity. THE writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to cost.