By this writ petition the petitioner is seeking a writ of Mandamus direct­ing the respondents to appoint the petitioner under the Die-in-harness Scheme. 2. I have heard Mr. RK Nokulsana Singh, learned counsel for the peti­tioner as well as Mr. Ashok Potsangbam learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Petitioner's father who serving as Additional Chief Engineer in the department of Public Works Department died in harness on 22.6.1983. 4. At the relevant time the petitioner was aged about 9 years. It is stated that the petitioner prosecuted his studies with great difficulties and passed HSLC examination in 1988 at the age of 15 years. Annexure Alto the writ petition is a certificate issued by the Assistant Secretary certifying that the petitioner had duly passed the HSLC examination in 1988 and was placed in the III Division. The certificate further recorded the date of birth of the petitioner as 1st January, 1972. Thereafter, in 1990 the petitioner passed Pre-University examination at the age of 17 years. A certificate to this effect is annexed in the writ petition as Annexure A2. The petitioner attained the age of 18 years in the month of February, 1991 and became eligible for employment. On 25.3.91 (Annexure A3) he applied for a suitable employment under the Die-in-harness Scheme by a petition addressed to the respondent Nos 2 and 3. Having not received any tangible result, the petitioner sent a reminder by its petition 28th January, 1993 (Annexure A5). Petitioner also approached this Court for a writ of Mandamus in Civil Rule No. 430 of 1993 and this Court disposed of the petition on 12.5.1993. directing the respondent No. 3 to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of the order passed by this Court. The aforesaid direction of this Court was forwarded to the Government by the third respondent by its letter dated 31st May, 1993 (Annexure A9). By a letter dated 5th June, 1993 (Annexure A10), the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Manipur informed the third respondent, Chief Engineer, that the applications dated 25.3.91 and 28.1.93 submitted by the petitioner for appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme cannot be considered after lapse of 7/8 years as under the existing scheme the application for appointment under the said scheme should be applied and processed within one year from the date of expiry of the Government servant. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court again for redressal of his grievance. 5. Respondents have filed counter. In the counter the respondents admitted that the father of the petitioner died in harness on 22.6.83. At the time of hearing of this petition, Mr. Ashok Potshangbam learned counsel for the respondents referred to paragraph 12 of the memorandum with regard to the scheme of the appointment of the dependant of the Government servant died in harness, reads as under : "(12) Since the appointment under the scheme is meant only for giving immediate relief to the bereaved family, the application complete in all respect should be submitted to the concerned Department within one year from the date of expiry of the deceased Govt. servant." Mr. Ashok Potshangbam therefore submits that an application for appointment under the Die-in harness Scheme must be processed and comp­leted within one year from the date of the deceased Government servant and therefore the application cannot be considered at this belated stage and the competent authority has rightly rejected the application dated 25th March, 1991 and 28th January, 1993 by its letter dated 5th June, 1993. 6. I am unable to accept this submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. Paragraph 12 of the scheme as quoted above has to be read together with paragraph 6 of the scheme. Paragraph 6 of the scheme reads : "(6) To ascertain the age of the applicant/nominee original/attested copy of Matriculation/HSLC etc. certificate as the case may be, should accompany the proposal.'' It must not be forgotten that for any employment to the Government service, the determination of age of the applicant is condition precedent. 7. Reverting to the facts of the case, the petitioner was aged about 9 years old at the time his father was expired. He attained the age of majority i.e. 18 years only sometime in the month of February, 1991. Prior to Febru­ary, 1991 the petitioner was a minor and he was not eligible for employment to any Govt. job. Even if he applied for the post, his case ought to have been rejected in view of the provisions of paragraph 6 of the scheme as quoted above, visualising the determination of age of the applicant on the basis of the Matriculation/HSLC certificate. job. Even if he applied for the post, his case ought to have been rejected in view of the provisions of paragraph 6 of the scheme as quoted above, visualising the determination of age of the applicant on the basis of the Matriculation/HSLC certificate. The provision enjoined in paragraph 6 of the scheme making it compulsorily accompanied by certificate of Matri­culation/HSLC would make it clear that the applicant under age or over­age, would not be suitable for seeking employment under the Die-in-harness Scheme. 8. The sole purpose of appointing the dependant under the scheme is to mitigate the economic hardships of the family due to the demise of the bread winner of the family. In such a situation, the claim of the applicant cannot be rejected mechanically, to do so, would defeat the very purpose of the scheme. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner attained the age of majority sometime in the month of February 1991, and he applied for the post under the Die-in-harness Scheme by its petition dated 23.3.91. In such a situation the period of one year as visualised in paragraph 12 of the scheme will run from the date of applicant (dependant) attained the age of majority and not from the date of deceased Govt. servant. Therefore, the application dated 23.3.91 filed by the petitioner for a suitable employment under the Die-in-harness Scheme is well within time and deserved to be considered. 9. Having resolved this point, the law with regard to appointment on compassionate ground is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court. I may usefully refer to a decision of the Apex Court rendered in Smti Sushina Gosain & others vs. Union of India & others, AIR 1989 SC 1976 . The Apex Court had held in paragraph 9 of the judgment as under : "9. We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment, supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant." 10. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment, supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant." 10. Keeping the above principle in view, I now direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner against any existing vacancy and if there is no vacancy, the respondents are directed to create supernumerary post and accommodate the petitioner in that post. This shall be done within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. Needless to say that the petitioner has been waiting since 1991 and matter brook no delay. 11. In the result, the petition is allowed. I however, make no order as to costs.