Allahabad High Court
Arvind Trivedi vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 7 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:197144
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 4454 of 2021
Arvind Trivedi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Pankaj Kumar Ojha, Seemant Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 34
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Seemant Singh and Pankaj Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. A joint statement has been made by learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any affidavit, and the writ petition is being decided at this stage.
3. The case of the writ petitioner is that his father who was working as Constable died in harness on 27.04.1996 and the writ petitioner at that point of time was minor and after attaining majority preferred an application seeking compassionate appointment on 28.10.2009 before the Superintendent of Police, Unnao. Thereafter the claim of the petitioner had been forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Unnao to Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment) PHQ, Allahabad. However, the claim of the writ petitioner came to be rejected on the ground that there was delay of 13 years on 31.3.2013/ 10.4.2013, which was subject matter of challenge in Service Single No.2413 of 2013, Arvind Trivedi vs. State of U.P. in which on 31.10.2017, the following orders were passed: "Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel for State.
By the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.03.2013 passed by the Joint Director of the State Government. By the said order, the Joint Director has refused to condone the delay for making appointment under 'Dying in Harness Rules' claiming that application for appointment under 'Dying in Harness Rules' was made after a period of 13 years of the death of the deceased employee.
The facts of the case are that on 27.04.1996, Shri Govind Narain Trivedi, who was a constable in U.P. Civil Police expired in a road accident. His son was minor at that time and immediately on becoming major, he moved an application for appointment under 'Dying in Harness Rules' on 28.10.2009. The said application is rejected by the State Government by the impugned order noting that appointment under 'Dying in Harness Rules' is made only to save the family from the immediate difficulties it suffers. The impugned order further notes that wife of the deceased could have applied under 'Dying in Harness Rules'.
Admittedly, the Dying-in-Harness Rules themselves provided for the condoning the delay even after 5 years by State Government. Hence, the State Government should not take such a strict view, rather when it itself accept the applications within a period of 5 years and grant appointment under the 'Dying in Harness Rules' and also retain the power to condone delay after the aforesaid period of 5 years.
In the present case, admittedly the delay is for a period of 13 years. It is also admitted that petitioner was minor and immediately after becoming major, he applied for appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules. It is also reflected on record that no other person from his family had ever applied for being appointed under 'Dying in Harness Rules'.
Admittedly, in large number of cases, State Government has condoned the delay for appointment under 'Dying in Harness Rules'. This Court in case of Service Single No. 18175 of 2017; Ravi Gautam Vs. State of U.P and Others condoned the delay after noting a similar exercise of power in case of Shri Karam Veer Singh, where the State Government has condoned the delay.
Hence, in the facts of the present case, it was a fit case where the State Government ought to have exercised its discretion of condoning the delay.
In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 31.03.2013 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) is set aside. The respondent no. 3 Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment), U.P. Police Headquarters, Allahabad is directed to consider the case of petitioner for appointment under 'Dying in Harness Rules' without going into the issues of delay and treating the same to be condoned.
With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is allowed."
4. Against the said judgment of the coordinate Bench, Special Appeal Defective No.246 of 2018 came to be preferred by the State of U.P. vs. Arvind Trivedi, which was dismissed on 07.05.2018, against which an SLP came to be preferred before the Hon'ble Apex Court being Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.22477 of 2018, State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Arvind Trivedi, which was also dismissed on 07.09.2018. Thereafter the papers came to be forwarded from one desk to the other recommending the case of the writ petitioner, but no final decision has been taken. In the meantime, the writ petitioner participated in the selection for the appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector Civil Police under the Dying in Harness (Compassionate Appointment) Rules 2019. However, he was not selected under Sub-Inspector and Inspector Services Rules 2015.
5. Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the respondents to consider the compassionate appointment of the writ petitioner under Dying in Harness Rules in accordance with the Rule of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules as was applicable at the time of the death of the father of the writ petitioner or at the time, the application dated 28.10.2009 was preferred by the writ petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has sought to argue that merely because the petitioner participated in the 2019 selections in pursuance of the 2015 Rules, would not extinguish its right for consideration of its claim for compassionate appointment on the Rules which were prevalent and in vogue at the time when the death of the father took place or when the writ petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. In order buttress the submissions, the reliance has been placed upon a judgment in Writ-A No.18868 of 2019, Himanshu Yadav vs. State of U.P. decided on 02.11.2022 by the coordinate Bench and Special Appeal No.126 of 2023, State of U.P. vs. Himanshu Yadav, decided on 07.07.2023 and the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal No. 7640 of 2024, State of U.P. vs. Himanshu Yadav decided on 14.08.2024 as well as the order passed in the Review Petition thereof and also a recent judgment of this Court in Writ-A No. 21425 of 2019, Deepak Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. decided on 24.07.2025. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that a conscious decision is to be taken by Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment/Personnel), Lucknow/ Respondent no.3.
7. Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned A.C.S.C. on the other hand while countering the submissions so raised by the counsel for the writ petitioner has sought to argue that the writ petitioner once having participated in the Regular Selections pursuance to the 2015 Rules in the year 2019 and was rendered unsuccessful cannot turn around and insists that his claim should be considered in terms of the Rules which were in vogue at the time when the father of the writ petitioner died and he had applied. However, since no decision either in black and while had been taken thus the third respondent be directed to consider the claim of the writ petitioner strictly in accordance with law.
8. Considering the submissions so made across the Bar and bearing in mind that the writ petitioner had been litigating its rights in the earlier spell of liltigation which stood endorsed in favour of the writ petitioner by the Hon'ble Apex Court and also the claim set up by the writ petitioner that mere participation in subjection to the selection pursuant to the 2015 Rules in the year 2019 would not extinguish the rights which stood vested by virtue of the rights recognized by this Court in the earlier spell of litigation, the writ petition stands disposed of directing the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation along with the self attested copy of the writ petition, counter affidavit, rejoinder and certified copy of the order before Respondent no.3, who on the said motion shall proceed to consider the claim of the writ petitioner strictly in accordance with law within a period of three months, from the date of production of certified copy of the order. In case Respondent no.3 finds that the claim of the writ petitioner is to be decided by any other authority, the papers shall be sent to that authority after due intimation to the writ petitioner.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
November 7, 2025
N.S.Rathour
