Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the oppo­site parties. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 07.05.2008, contained in Annexure-10 to the writ petition, by which application of the pe­titioner for appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependent of Gov­ernment Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 1974") has been rejected on the ground that the application dated 08.03.2002 was moved for appointment after nine years of death of the petitioner's father. The petitioner has also sought a writ of mandamus for commanding the opposite party No.5 to consider the griev­ance of the petitioner in light of Government Order dated 28.07.2006. 3. Brief facts of the case, as culled out from the pleadings of the writ petition, are that fa­ther of the petitioner was working as Cook in 26th Battalion P.A.C. Gorakhpur and during the course of employment he died on 23.02.1993. At the relevant time, the peti­tioner was minor and his mother Smt. Prabha Devi made an application just after the death of her husband for appointment of her son under the Rules, 1974. The concerned Au­thority assured her that on attaining the age of majority of her son, his candidature will be considered. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that vide letter dated 13.10.1994, the Commandant informed the petitioner's mother that appointment can be provided to one of the family members within five years from the date of the death of an employee. On attaining the age of majority by his son, the petitioner's mother met the Commandant on 15.02.1998 and again on 18.02.1998 for appointment of the petitioner as time of five years was going to expire. The Commandant assured the mother of the peti­tioner that let the petitioner complete his High School then his case will be considered but nothing was given in writing by the Comman­dant. Since the mother of the petitioner could not afford the burden of family, the petitioner left his studies after completing Class-IX in the year 1997-98. The petitioner and his mother met the concerned authorities again and gave an application on 15.02.2003. Since the mother of the petitioner could not afford the burden of family, the petitioner left his studies after completing Class-IX in the year 1997-98. The petitioner and his mother met the concerned authorities again and gave an application on 15.02.2003. On 13.12.2006,the petitioner again contacted the Commandant 26th Battalion, P.A.C., who advised the petitioner to give a fresh applica­tion to him and, accordingly, fresh applica­tion was submitted on the same day. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Commandant vide letter dated 23.11.2006 sought various docu­ments, which were immediately submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter, the Commandant 26th Battalion, P.A.C., Gorakhpur also in­quired as to why the petitioner did not give application within five years of the death of the employee. The Commandant 26th Bat­talion, P.A.C. Gorakhpur vide letter dated 01.09.2008 asked for related documents of the petitioner and immediately after receiv­ing the said letter, petitioner sent all the re­lated documents to the Commandant 26th Battalion P.A.C., Gorakhpur on 27.09.2008. The Commandant 26th Battalion P.A.C., Gorakhpur vide letter dated 07.05.2009 in­formed the petitioner that the State Govern­ment vide its letter dated 23.04.2009 has in­formed that since application for appointment as a dependent of the deceased employee has been moved after nine years, the State Gov­ernment has not found any cogent reason to grant relaxation in the time limit for making application. 5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the record of the depart­ment itself shows that mother of the petitioner applied under Dying in Harness Rules just after the death of his father in the year 1994 and thereafter, again in the year 1998, that was also within five years. Thereafter, the pe­titioner approached the opposite parties after attaining the age of majority and, as such, re­jection of the candidature of petitioner is il­legal, arbitrary and against the provisions of Rules, 1974 as amended from time to time. 6. Thereafter, the pe­titioner approached the opposite parties after attaining the age of majority and, as such, re­jection of the candidature of petitioner is il­legal, arbitrary and against the provisions of Rules, 1974 as amended from time to time. 6. Learned Standing Counsel while oppos­ing the writ petition submitted that from pe­rusal of the record, it is evident that the mother of the petitioner in the year 1994 requested the P.A.C. Headquarter for giving appoint­ment to her son (petitioner) and for sanction of extra-ordinary pension and in pursuance of the same it was informed vide letter dated 13.01.2009 by the Commandant 26th Battal­ion P.A.C., Gorakhpur that as per the amended rules the dependent of the deceased govern­ment servant has to apply within five years of death. The documents for grant of family pension has already been processed and in the present case she is not entitled for extra­ordinary pension. 7. It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the record also reveals that at the time of death of the petitioner's father he was minor and, therefore, on attain­ing the age of majority he moved an applica­tion on 10.11.2006 for giving appointment on compassionate ground and in response thereof the Commandant 26th Battalion P.A.C., Gorakhpur informed the mother of the petitioner that if she wants appointment of anyone as dependents of government servant all the educational and other certificates be provided after fulfilling the pro forma as pre­scribed in the circular dated 04.04.2003 of the Police Headquarter, Allahabad so that matter could be referred to the police head­quarter (Annexure-6 to the writ petition). It appears that vide letter dated 01.09.2008 in response to the application of the petitioner the Deputy Commandant 26th Battalion P.A.C, Gorakhpur requested the mother of the petitioner for providing specific documents as they were required to send the informa­tion on 20 points check list to the police head­quarter, Allahabad (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). Thereafter the matter of the peti­tioner was considered by the State Govern­ment. Since no cogent reasons were given for granting relaxation for not making applica­tion within the prescribed time, the State Government refused to grant relaxation in the time limit for making application beyond five years and the decision of the State Govern­ment was informed to the petitioner. 8. Heard learned counsel for the respec­tive parties and gone through the record of the writ petition. 9. 8. Heard learned counsel for the respec­tive parties and gone through the record of the writ petition. 9. It is admitted position that the petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father and his mother moved an application for grant of extra-ordinary pension as well as for giv­ing appointment to the petitioner and similar application was also given to the Hon'ble the Chief Minister. In pursuance to the said ap­plications the Commandant 26th Battalion P.A.C., Gorakhpur informed vide letter dated 30.01.1994 that for seeking appointment as a dependent of government servant, the depen­dent is to apply within five years from the date of the death of government servant and since her case does not fall in the category of extra-ordinary pension, as such, regular pen­sion is being paid. The record further shows that the petitioner, on attaining the age of majority approached the respondents vide ap­plication dated 10.11.2006 for appointment as dependent of deceased government ser­vant. The Commandant 26th Battalion P.A.C., Gorakhpur informed the mother of the peti­tioner vide letter dated 23.11.2006 to submit the application on prescribed form along with concerned documents as per circular dated 04.04.2003 of the Police Headquarter, Allahabad. 10. It appears that before forwarding the application of the petitioner to the Police Headquarter, Allahabad the Commandant 26th Battalion P.A.C., Gorakhpur was re­quired to send his report on 20 points check list and since certain informations were lack­ing, the Deputy Commandant 26th Battalion P.A.C., Gorakhpur vide letter dated 01.09.2008 requested the mother of the peti­tioner to provide the necessary informations/certificates including the reasons for delay in moving the application (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) and in pursuance of the same the informations were sent by the mother of the petitioner vide letter dated 27.09.2008. Since as per the rule 5 (1) (iii) the power of relaxation beyond five years in making ap­plication under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 vests to the State Government, the matter was referred to the State Government and the State Government did not find any good ground for granting relaxation. 11. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to go through the provisions of rule 5 of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. The extract of the said provi­sion reads as under:- "5. 11. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to go through the provisions of rule 5 of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. The extract of the said provi­sion reads as under:- "5. Recruitment of a member of the fam­ily of the deceased.- 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 employed 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 Commission, in re­laxation of the normal recruitment rules if such person- (1) fulfils the educational qualifications prescribed for the post; (ii) is otherwise qualified for government service; and (iii) makes the application for employment within five years from the date of the 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 such or relax the requirement as it may consider necessary for dealing within the case in a just and equitable manner. (2) As far as possible, such an employment should be given in the same department in which the deceased government servant was employed prior to his death." 12. On examination of the aforesaid rules, it makes clear that there is a time limit prescribed, according to which the deserving candidate has to make an application for ap­pointment within five years from the date of death of the government servant. 13. Admittedly, in the present case, the pe­titioner was a minor at the time of death of his father and his mother moved an applica­tion in the year 1994 for giving appointment to the petitioner as a dependent of deceased and not for her appointment and since the pe­titioner was not eligible being minor, he ap­proached the authorities for appointment un­der Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 after at­taining the age of majority. After considering the said application the State Government did not find any good reason for granting any relaxation in making application beyond the prescribed period of five years from the date of death of government servant. 14. The whole object of giving a compas­sionate appointment is intended to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and fi­nancial difficulties which was faced by the family of the deceased due to death of earn­ing member of the family. The benefit of Rules, 1974 is given to the dependent of the deceased government servant so that the fam­ily could over-come such financial con­straints. 15. The reason for appointment on com­passionate ground, therefore, has to be reasonable and approximate to the time of the death of the bread earner of the family, inas­much as the very purpose of giving such ben­efit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But this, however, can­not be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in government ser­vice. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the mat­ter of Umesh Kumar Nagapl v. State of Haryana, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 : (1994 AIR SCW 2305) pleased to observe as under: - "The whole object of granting compassion­ate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crises. The object is not to give a number of such family a post muchless a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in har­ness does not entitled his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the de­ceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crises that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. 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. 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 crises 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 crises is over. In Haryana Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar and another, JT 1996 (2) SC 542, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the compassionate employment is not a vested right. It is an exception to a general Rule. The object of compassionate appointment is to get the immediate relief to the family of the de­ceased and it is not a legal right." In the State of H.P. and another v. Jafli Devi (Smt.) (1997) 5 SCC 301 , it has been held by the Supreme Court that the policy laid down by the Government regarding compassionate appointment should not be departed from by the High Court on the ground of sympathetic considerations and hardship of the person concerned. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the mat­ter of Director of Education (Secondary) and another v. Pushpendra Kumar and others, re­ported in (1998) 5 SCC 192 : ( AIR 1998 SC 2230 ) pleased to observe in para-8 as under:- "8. The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consid­eration and having regard to the fact that un­less some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Such a provision makes a de­parture from the general provisions provid­ing for appointment on the post by following a particular procedure. Since such a provi­sion enables appointment being made with­out following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provi­sions. Such a provision makes a de­parture from the general provisions provid­ing for appointment on the post by following a particular procedure. Since such a provi­sion enables appointment being made with­out following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provi­sions. An exception cannot subsume the main provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision. Care has, therefore, to be taken that a provision for grant of compas­sionate employment, which is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions, does not unduly interfere with the right of other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek employment against the post which would have been available to them, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the de­pendent of a deceased employee. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana this Court has taken note of the object underlying the rules providing for appointment on compas­sionate grounds and has held that the Gov­ernment or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the fam­ily of the deceased and it is only if it is satis­fied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible mem­ber of the family." 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the mat­ter of I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, reported in 2007 (6) SCC 162 : (AIR 2007 SC (Supp.) 1264) pleased to hold as under:- "7. Public employment is considered to be a wealth. It in terms of the constitutional scheme cannot be given on descent. When such an exception has been carved out by this Court, the same must be strictly complied with. Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hard­ship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread-earner. When an ap­pointment is made on compassionate ground, it should be kept confined only to the pur­pose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion." 19. Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hard­ship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread-earner. When an ap­pointment is made on compassionate ground, it should be kept confined only to the pur­pose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion." 19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the mat­ter of Akhilesh Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2008) 1 UPLBEC 369: ( AIR 2008 SC 1680 : 2008 (3) ALJ 604) pleased to observe in paras-10, 11,12 and 13 as under:- "10. In Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and others, JT 2000 (10) SC 156, the Apex Court reiterated that the compassionate appointment is provided only to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crises resulting due to the death of sole bread-earner who had left family in penury without any means of livelihood but it cannot be treated to be a reserved vacancy for the de­pendents of the deceased Government servant who died-in-harness. 11. In the case of Haryana State Electric­ity Board v. Krishna Devi (2002) 2 LLJ 773 , the Apex Court while reiterating the objec­tive of compassionate appointment as laid down in the earlier cases further observed that the application made at a belated stage cannot be entertained for the reason that by lapse of time, the purpose of making such appoint­ment stands evaporated. 12. In the case of Commissioner, Public Instruction and others v. K. R. Viswanath, 2005 (107) FLR 153: ( AIR 2005 SC 3275 ), the Apex Court has observed as under:- "The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hard­ship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the fam­ily in distress. The fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisage spe­cifically otherwise, to state that as and when such minor becomes a major he can be ap­pointed without any time consciousness or limit." 13. If the family has sufficient means to survive for years together and can take care of the minors who have turned into major after undergoing educational qualification etc. If the family has sufficient means to survive for years together and can take care of the minors who have turned into major after undergoing educational qualification etc. that itself would be evident to show that now the family is not in financial crises as it could have at the time of sudden demise of the de­ceased necessitating compassionate appoint­ment at a late stage i.e., after several years." 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the mat­ter of Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 481 pleased to observe in paras-11 and 12 as under:- "11. The very concept of giving a com­passionate appointment is to tide over the financial difficulties that are faced by the fam­ily of the deceased due to the death of the earning member of the family. There is immediate loss of earning for which the family suffers financial hardship. The benefit is given so that the family can tide over such finan­cial constraints. 12. The request for appointment on com­passionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the bread-earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to over­come sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in har­ness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in government service." 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the mat­ter of General Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan v. Laxfni Devi and others, reported in (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 205: ( AIR 2009 SC 3121 : 2009 (6) ALJ 451) pleased to hold as under:- "19. It is a trite law that a regular vacancy cannot be filled up except in terms of the recruitment rules as also upon compliance with the constitutional scheme of equality. In view of the Explanation appended to Rule 2 (a), for the purpose of this case we would, how­ever, assume that such regular appointment was not necessarily to be taken recourse to. In such an event sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) as also the Explanation appended thereto would be rendered unconstitutional. 20. In view of the Explanation appended to Rule 2 (a), for the purpose of this case we would, how­ever, assume that such regular appointment was not necessarily to be taken recourse to. In such an event sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) as also the Explanation appended thereto would be rendered unconstitutional. 20. The provision of law which ex facie violates the equality clause and permits appointment through the side-door being uncon­stitutional must be held to be impermissible and in any event requires strict interpreta­tion." 22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the mat­ter of Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and other, reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2782 pleased to hold that the vacancy cannot be reserved for a dependent of a government servant till he attains the majority after num­ber of years. Para-3 of the same reads as un-der:- "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 bread-earner 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 (supra). It is also signifi­cant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 02.06.1988, 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 is some specific provi­sions. The very basis of compassionate ap­pointment is to see that the family gets im­mediate relief." 23. On the basis of analysis of the afore­said judgments, this Court comes to the conclusion that the State Government has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for relax­ation in making application beyond the pe­riod of five years from the death of employee, as the employment under the dying in har­ness rules cannot be taken as a matter of right as observed hereinabove. The purpose of giv­ing appointment to the family member of the deceased government servant is to meet out the immediate exigency and not for endless compassion. 24. The purpose of giv­ing appointment to the family member of the deceased government servant is to meet out the immediate exigency and not for endless compassion. 24. It is now a well settled principle of law that appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the Public Sector Undertaking is to see that the dependents of the deceased are not de­prived of the means of livelihood. It only en­ables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. 25. In the present case, the mother of the pe­titioner never applied for her appointment and she wanted appointment for the petitioner, who was minor at the relevant time and on attain­ing the age of majority i.e. after the period of about nine years, the petitioner is not entitled to claim appointment on compassionate ground and, as such, present writ petition does not war­rant any interference by this Court. 26. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 27. The writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.