ASHOK BHUSAN, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri R. S. Mishra, Counsel for the petitioner, Sri H. N. Tripathi appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1. ( 2 ) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided finally. ( 3 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the appointment to the petitioner in accordance to his qualification. ( 4 ) THE facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings of the parties are; petitioners father Sri bhagwan Singh was permanent Cashier-cum-Clerk in the District Co-operative Bank Limited, agra. The petitioner, in the writ petition , has claimed that his father was kidnapped on 10th july, 1980 and subsequently was murdered. The petitioner further in the same paragraph-2 of the writ petition says that date of murder is not know because from date he was kidnapped, his whereabouts are not known and it is presumed that he must have been murdered. An FIR was also lodged in which police has submitted a report that whereabouts of the father of the petitioner are not traceable. Petitioners case is that he was born on 2. 1. 1972 and he became major on 2. 1. 1990. Petitioner stated that his mother appliedfor appointment with District Co-operative bank, Agra as dependent of late Bhagwan Singh but no action was taken on her application. The board of Directors of District Co-operative Bank, Agra passed a resolution on 22nd April, 1992 in favour of the petitioner and recommended the Institutional Service Board for grant of approval to the petitioner. U. P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board asked for further details from the bank which was sent by the Bank. The Institutional Service Board vide its letter dated 24th november, 1992 informed the Secretary of District Co-operative Bank, Agra that approval to the petitioners appointment as dependent of deceased employee cannot be granted. The letter dated 5th November, 1992 of the State Government was referred in which it was stated that it is not possible to give approval to the dependent of deceased employee who died prior to 1983. The aforesaid letter has been filed as Annexure CA-IV to the counter affidavit of the Bank. The letter dated 5th November, 1992 of the State Government was referred in which it was stated that it is not possible to give approval to the dependent of deceased employee who died prior to 1983. The aforesaid letter has been filed as Annexure CA-IV to the counter affidavit of the Bank. ( 5 ) THE U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 contains Regulation 104 which was inserted by U. P. Co-operative, Societies Employees Service (IV Amendment)Regulations, 1983. Regulation 104 is quoted below : "104 Recruitment of dependents of employees dying in harness.- (i) In case and employee of co-operative Society, who is either permanent in his appointment or temporary, who has been recruited in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies employees Service Regulations, 1975 and has been holding his post for a minimum continuous period of three years dies in harness after the commencement of these Regulations, one member of his family, who is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation or an undertaking owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State government, shall on making an application for the purposes, be given a suitable employment under the society concerned provided such member possesses the minimum educational qualifications prescribed for the post and is otherwise fit for appointment thereto. Such employment shall be given to the said member without delay and as far as possible, under the same society in which the deceased servant was employed at the time of his death. (ii) The application for appointment under this Regulation, shall be addressed to the appointing authority, and shall inter alia, contain the following details : (a) The name of the society where the deceased employee was working, the post held by him at the time of his death and the of his death; (b) The names age and other details, particularly pertaining to marriage, employment and status in respect of the surviving members of the family of the deceased employee; (c) Details about financial position of the said member; (d) Educational and other qualifications if any and the date of birth of the applicant (with proof ). (iii) Notwithstanding the provisions of Regulation-12 a candidate seeking employment under this regulation must have attained the age of 18 years before he is appointed to a post under the society. (iii) Notwithstanding the provisions of Regulation-12 a candidate seeking employment under this regulation must have attained the age of 18 years before he is appointed to a post under the society. (iv) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (1) of Regulation 15, it shall be open to the board to whom the case shall be referred by the appointing society, to dispense with the procedural requirements of selection, such as written test or interview by a selection committee, and accord its approval to the appointment of the candidate after satisfying itself that the candidate will be able to maintain the minimum standard of efficiency expected of him for the post in question, and that the requirements of Regulations 9 and 14 are fulfilled. (v) Where more than one members of the family of the deceased employee, seek employment under this regulation, the Board shall decide, keeping in view the overall interest of the family of the deceased employee, particularly the widow and the minor members thereof, which of the members should be given employment under the provisions of this regulations. The decision of the Board in the matter shall be final. " ( 6 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner Sri R. S. Mishra submitted that decision of the Institutional Service "board not to approve the petitioner for appointment as dependent of deceased employee is erroneous. The petitioner is fully eligible for the appointment and he made the application in the year 1990 after attaining the majority. It was submitted by Counsel for the petitioner that since petitioners rather was kidnapped on 8th February, 1980 and thereafter his whereabouts are not known, his death will be presumed after 7 years i. e. in February, 1987 and it was only after presumption of the death of the petitioners father, petitioner became entitled for appointment. It was submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that the claim of the petitioner was wrongly rejected on misconception that death of petitioners father took place prior to 1983 i. e. prior to enforcement of Regulation 104. ( 7 ) DR. H. N. Tripathi appearing for the respondents refuted the submissions made by Counsel for the petitioner. Dr. Tripathi submitted that a compassionate appointment is to be given without any delay because the purpose of the appointment is to relief the family from financial problems caused due to death of bread earner. ( 7 ) DR. H. N. Tripathi appearing for the respondents refuted the submissions made by Counsel for the petitioner. Dr. Tripathi submitted that a compassionate appointment is to be given without any delay because the purpose of the appointment is to relief the family from financial problems caused due to death of bread earner. Petitioner does not acquire any vested right to claim appointment after 11 years of his fathers death. There is unreasonable delay on the part of the petitioner even in claiming appointment. The claim of compassionate appointment does not give any right to the dependent of deceased employee to claim reservation of a post which can be availed several years after the death. ( 8 ) BOTH the parties have cited several decisions which will be referred while considering the same. ( 9 ) AFTER having heard the Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is clear that bhagwan Singh disappeared on 8th February, 1980. The mother of the petitioner Smt. Ratan devi has filed an application dated 26th July, 1986 claiming that Bhagwan Singh has died and payment of provident fund and gratuity be made. A death certificate dated 6th July, 1991 from pradhan was also submitted in the Bank claiming that Bhagwan Singh died on 8th February, 1980. FIR could not be lodged by family members of the Bhagwan Singh on account of their poverty and they belonging to backward caste. The Institutional Service Board also wrote letter dated 20th September, 1991 with regard to claim of the petitioner. In the letter of the Secretary of Institutional Service Board, the final report of the police that after enquiry Bhagwan Singh has not been traced out, hence the enquiry is terminated and the death certificate issued by Pradhan was referred which stated that Bhagwan Singh was murdered on 8. 2. 1980. The aforesaid letter has been annexed as Annexure CA-II to the counter affidavit. The Institutional. Service Board wrote to the Bank that there is contradiction in the aforesaid two informations and the Bank may conduct an enquiry. The Bank sent a report to the Secretary of the Institutional Service Board in which mention was made of the lodging of the FIR and the report submitted by police. The Institutional. Service Board wrote to the Bank that there is contradiction in the aforesaid two informations and the Bank may conduct an enquiry. The Bank sent a report to the Secretary of the Institutional Service Board in which mention was made of the lodging of the FIR and the report submitted by police. As directed by the Institutional Service board neither Bank conducted any enquiry nor said anything with regard to the death certificate issued by Pradhan in which it was stated that Bhagwan Singh was murdered on 8. 2. 1980. ( 10 ) THE letter of the Institutional Service Board dated 24th November, 1992, which has been filed as Annexure CA-IV to the counter affidavit, informs that petitioner cannot be given appointment as dependent of deceased employee since death of his father is earlier to 1983 i. e. prior to enforcement of Regulation 104. The Service Board has referred the matter to the State government and the State Government has issued a letter dated 5th February, 1992 informing that there is no provision for giving appointment to dependent of deceased employee who died prior to 1983. From the letter of the Institutional Service Board, it is clear that Institutional service Board proceeded on the assumption that the petitioners father died on 8. 2. 1980. ( 11 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner has placed reliance on following to decisions of this Court : (i) 2000 (1) ESC 448, Pushpendra Singh v. Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Aligarh and Anr. . (ii) 2000 (2) ESC 967, Manoj Kumar Saxena v. District Magistrate, Bareilly and Ors. . (iii) 2000 (2) ESC 501, Jagdish Ram v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench and ors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In Pushpendra Singhs case the father of Pushpendra Singh died on 31. 8. 1984. At the time of death of his father, he was minor and he applied on 23rd February, 1999 for appointment after attaining the majority on 12th December, 1998. The claim of Pushpendra Singh was rejected by u. P. State Road Transport Corporation by order dated 30th June, 1999 against which he filed the writ petition which was dismissed by learned Single Judge by judgment dated 4th November, 1999 against which special appeal was filed. The claim of Pushpendra Singh was rejected by u. P. State Road Transport Corporation by order dated 30th June, 1999 against which he filed the writ petition which was dismissed by learned Single Judge by judgment dated 4th November, 1999 against which special appeal was filed. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment , the division Bench referred to two judgments of the Apex Court which laid down that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of reasonable period. Paragraphs-4 and 5 of the Division Bench judgment is quoted below :"4. The Rule of compassionate appointment is an exception to the general mode of appointment strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications on merits. It is bora of pure humanitarian consideration and interest of justice, reckoning into consideration the fact that unless some sorurce of sustance is provided the family would not be able to fend for itself on its own. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. [umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and ors. , (1994) 4 SCC 138 ]. In the said case, the Supreme Court has held that view that mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle a family to get employment as Of right irrespective of "the financial condition of the family of the deceased". "the compassionate appointment", it has further been held "cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right, which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole bread winner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over". 5. In Jagdish Prasad v. State of Haryana, 1996 (1) SLR 7, the question of appointment on compassionate ground to an applicant who was four years old at the time when his father, an ex-employee died in harness came up for consideration before the Apex Court. 5. In Jagdish Prasad v. State of Haryana, 1996 (1) SLR 7, the question of appointment on compassionate ground to an applicant who was four years old at the time when his father, an ex-employee died in harness came up for consideration before the Apex Court. It was contended that since the appellant therein was minor when the father died in harness, the compassionate circumstances having continues till the date he made an application for appointment, he was entitled to be appointed on com- passionate ground. The contention was met with disapproval by the Supreme Court in the following words: "the very object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employees who die in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. Singh the death occurred way back in 1971, in which year, the appellant was four years old, it cannot be said that he is entitled to be appointed after he attained majority lying thereafter. In other words, if that contention is accepted, it amounts to another mode of recruitment of the dependent of a deceased Government servant which cannot be encouraged, co-hors the recruitment rules. " ( 12 ) THE Division Bench in Paragraph -6 of the judgment affirmed the order of learned Single judge by following words : "the impugned decision did not suffer from the blemish of any infirmity. As a result of foregoing discussion the appeal is bereft of merits. " The Division Bench, however, after making the aforesaid observation on the basis of U. P. (Recruitment of Government Servant) Dying-in-Harness Rules, 3974 which envisage consideration of an application for compassionate appointment made even after five years of the death of the employee if the circumstances so warrant, disposed of the appeal with the observation that in case an application is moved, the respondents may reckon with the feasibility of a temporary appointment if the family is still reeling under financial straits. The ratio of the division Bench judgment was thus that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of reasonable period and the Division Bench approved the judgment of leaned Single Judge which rejected the claim of a minor who made an application after attaining the majority. The ratio of the division Bench judgment was thus that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of reasonable period and the Division Bench approved the judgment of leaned Single Judge which rejected the claim of a minor who made an application after attaining the majority. The observation made in paragraph 6 of the judgment observing that application can be made for compassionate appointment even after five years of the death of the employee as envisaged in rules did not lay down any precedent that a minor has right to make an application after attaining the majority. ( 13 ) IN the second judgment, which has been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the father of Manoj Kumar Saxena, the petitioner, died on 13th August, 1987. Petitioner after attaining the majority applied in the year 1993 i. e. within six years from the date of death. The claim was rejected on the ground that it is made after five years. In the writ petition, the learned Single Judge relying on the proviso to Rule 5 (1) of the Rules as amended in 1993 observed that it visualises that if the State Government is satisfied that denial of the compassionate appointment under Dying in Haress Rules due to any delay in moving the application would cause undue hardship, the same may be considered in relaxation of the Rule. Rule-5 of the Rules as amended in 1993 clearly contemplates power of relaxation in the State government with regard to a claim which is made after five years of the death. In Rule 1974 earlier there was no period prescribed for making application but by 20th February, 1995 amendment it was provided that the application should be made within a period of five years. Proviso to Rule 5 reserves power of relaxation in the State Government in appropriate cases. Rule 5 amended is quoted below : "5. In Rule 1974 earlier there was no period prescribed for making application but by 20th February, 1995 amendment it was provided that the application should be made within a period of five years. Proviso to Rule 5 reserves power of relaxation in the State Government in appropriate cases. Rule 5 amended is quoted below : "5. (1) In case a Government servant dies in harness after the commencement of these rules and the spouse of the deceased Government servant is not already employed under the Central government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central government or a State Government, one member of his family who is not already empowered under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government shall, on making an application for the purposes, be given a suitable employment in Government service on a post except the post which is within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service, in relation of the normal recruitment rules if such person : (1) fulfills the educational qualification prescribed for the post. (2) is otherwise qualified for Government service, and (3) makes the application for employment within five years from the date of death of the government servant: provided that where the State Government is satisfied that the time limit fixed for making the application for employment causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may dispense with or relax the requirement as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. " ( 14 ) IN Manoj Kumar Saxenas case also no preposition was laid down that a person has right to apply after attaining the majority and his application cannot be said to be barred by laches. The judgment only referred to and relied proviso to Rule 5 which gave power of relaxation to the state Government and only direction was issued for consideration of the application of the petitioner by the State Government invoking the aforesaid proviso. ( 15 ) WITH regard to judgment of Jagdish Ram cited by Counsel for the petitioner, it is to be noted that in the aforesaid case, the application for compassionate appointment was made within one year from the date of death of his father. ( 15 ) WITH regard to judgment of Jagdish Ram cited by Counsel for the petitioner, it is to be noted that in the aforesaid case, the application for compassionate appointment was made within one year from the date of death of his father. Claim was rejected after 7 years on the ground that it being a case over five years old and in the light of more deserving cases, the application was rejected. The Court held that: "the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner in our view was rejected by departmental Rules providing limitation of five years and it also cannot be said that the claim which was made within one year from the date the father of the petitioner died was belated. " In view of above, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to grant suitable employment. The facts of the aforesaid case are distinguishable since in the present case application was made with unreasonable delay. ( 16 ) COUNSEL for the respondents Dr. H. N. Tripathi has relied on Division Bench judgment of this court in Harvansh Sahai Srivastava v. State of U. P. and Ors. , (1990) 1 UPLBEC 220 . Harvansh sahai Srivastavas case was a case of minor who applied for compassionate appointment after 9 years of his fathers death. The application was made after attaining the majority by the said petitioner. The Division Bench in paragraph 6 of the judgment lays down as under : "6. Counsel for the petitioner, has however, urged that the cause of action of the case of the petitioner arose when he became major and obtained the Bachelor of Arts degree for being appointed on a Government post. We are, however, of the opinion that the cause of action would arise on the death of the person who died in harness. The clear intention of the Rules is to provide assistance to the deceased who was a Government servant and has died in harness. It is at that time that the help is required by the family. By any stretch of imagination it can be said that after more than 9 years of the death of the Government servant the dependents can seek benefit of the Rules. May that in certain cases there may be no eligible member who can seek employment. It is at that time that the help is required by the family. By any stretch of imagination it can be said that after more than 9 years of the death of the Government servant the dependents can seek benefit of the Rules. May that in certain cases there may be no eligible member who can seek employment. Even the Rules provide that employment has not be offered to every dependent. The dependents will have to fulfill certain qualifications so that they can discharge the duty assigned to them in case the employment is offered to them. In view of the matter the mother of the petitioner could seek employment under the Rules. Employment has been offered to the widows of the deceased employees under the Rules by the State Government in case there are no children left by the deceased of the children are not qualified to seek employment under the rules. " ( 17 ) COUNSEL for the respondents referred to judgment of Apex Court in Sanjay Kumar v. State of bihar and Ors. , (2000) 7 Supreme Court Cases 192. The Apex Court was considering the case in which the appellant was a minor and he moved an application after 9 years of the death of her mother for appointment as dependent of deceased employee. The High Court has dismissed the writ petition against which special leave petition was filed before the Supreme Court. The Apex court held in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the judgment that: " 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in Chandra Bhushan v. State of bihar. Learned Senior Counsel points out that it was held in that case that an applicants right cannot be defeated on the ground of delay caused by authorities which was beyond the control of the applicant. Learned Senior Counsel further points out that instead of following the above judgment, the same learned Judge has now held on 21. 4. 1997 that the application is time barred. Learned Counsel has placed before us a judgment of this Court in Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar. He submits that, in this case, a direction was given to create supernumerary posts. 3. We are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. 4. 1997 that the application is time barred. Learned Counsel has placed before us a judgment of this Court in Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar. He submits that, in this case, a direction was given to create supernumerary posts. 3. We are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the breadearner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education v. Pushpendra Kumar. It is also significant to noticed that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 2. 6. 1988, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief. " ( 18 ) THAT another judgment of the Apex Court (1989) 9 Supreme Court Cases 485, Sohan v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr. , was again a case of a person who applied after 10 years of death. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, 1994 (4) Supreme Court Cases 138, held that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after laps- of reasonable time. In paragraph 6 of the judgment it was held that: "6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. " ( 19 ) FROM the facts of the present case, it is clear that Bhagwan Singh became untraceable from 8th February, 1980. Even if it is assumed that death will be presumed after 7 years, it was to be presumed that Bhagwan Singh is died on 7th February, 1987. The facts which has come on record are that application claiming compassionate appointment was made by the petitioner on 7. 7. 1990. Petitioners mother has already given an application that Bhagwan Singh is dead and payment of provident fund and gratuity be made to her. Claim which was made by the petitioner was late with reasonable delay and due to lapse of such a long period, it cannot be held that the purpose for giving compassionate appointment was still there. The Apex Court has laid down in umesh Kumar Nagpals case (supra), that compassionate appointment is given to a person to get over the financial crisis which be faces at the time of death of sole breadwinner. The aforesaid purpose and crisis cannot be presumed to be continuing for more than a decade of disappearance of Bhagwaa Singh. ( 20 ) THE Institutional Service Board has treated the death of Bhagwan Singh on 8th February, 1980 and on that basis took the view that since death occurred prior to 1983 i. e. prior to corning in the statute the provisions of giving compassionate appointment on the facts which was submitted by the Bank before the Institutional Service Board which contain two divergent stories first being that Bhagwan Singh was kidnapped on 8th February, 1980 and his whereabouts are not known and second that he was murdered about which family is well aware but on account of poverty and social backwardness they could not lodge an FIR the Institutional Service Board was free to take its own view one way or the other. Before the Institutional Service Board, there was certificate for Pradhan about the death of Bhagwan Singh. It cannot be said that Institutional service Board committed error in accepting the version of death submitted to it. Before the Institutional Service Board, there was certificate for Pradhan about the death of Bhagwan Singh. It cannot be said that Institutional service Board committed error in accepting the version of death submitted to it. The Institutional service Board after accepting the death on 8. 2. 1980 of Bhagwan Singh committed no error in saying that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment since it is well-settled that compassionate appointment can be given only when there is provision for the same. Admittedly Regulation 104 of the Rules came into statute only in 1983. ( 21 ) ALTERNATIVELY even accepting the submissions made by the Counsel for the petitioner that there is no evidence of death of Bhagwan Singh on 8th February, 1980 and death has to be presumed as per the provisions of Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act after 7 years, the presumption of death was very much there on 7th Febaiary, 1987 and if on that date i. e. 8th february, 1980 there was need and requirement of compassionate appointment claim ought to have been sought immediately. It appears that the mother of the petitioner though applied for compassionate appointment but did not pursue the matter and has never come forward that she should have been given appointment by the Bank. The mother of the petitioner was not suffering from any disability as is claimed by the petitioner that he was minor till 1990. Not pursuing the claim by mother of the petitioner further does not give any justification to the petitioner to claim appointment in the year 1990. ( 22 ) IN view of above discussion I am of the view that there has been unreasonable delay in claiming the appointment on compassionate ground by the petitioner and his application for compassionate appointment was rightly not granted by the Institutional Service Board. ( 23 ) THERE is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. .