Allahabad High Court
Sagar Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 13 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:201368
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15809 of 2025
Sagar Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Sharda Prasad Mishra, Subhash Chandra Maurya
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 34
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Subhash Chandra Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for State-respondents.
2. The case of the writ petitioner is that the father of the late Vijay Kumar, who was working as Beldar on a daily basis in Lok Nirman Vibhag since 10.03.1988, died on 04.09.2005 seeking compassionate appointment the mother of the writ petitioner being, Maya Devi preferred Writ Petition No.?1439 of 2006 (Maya Devi v. State of UP) in which on 16.01.2006, the following orders were passed:
"The application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment due to death of her husband Sri Vijay Kumar during harness as Beldar on daily wage basis in the Lok Nirman Vibhag of the State of U.P. has been rejected under order dated 29 ^ m January, 2003 passed by the Executive Engineer National Highway Division Public Works Department, Ghaziabad only on the ground that under the Government Order dated 29th January, 2003 it has been clarified that the provisions of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant, Dying-in-hamess Rules, 1974 are not attracted in respect of dependents of daily wage employees.
The controversy with regards to applicability of compassionate appointments rules qua dependents of daily wage employees was subject matter of consideration before this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2002) 1 UPLBEC 337; as also in the case of Abeshek Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and others, passed in Writ Petition No. 64405 of 2005 dated 4th October, 2005 and it has specifically been held that the dependents of daily wage employees, who has put long length of service, are also entitled for such compassionate appointment provided there have been no long breako in service. Artificial breaks have been directed to be ignored.
In view of the aforesaid legal position, the order passed by the Executive Engineer dated 26.11.2005 cannot be legally sustained, as it runs contrary to the legal proposition laid down by this Court, referred to above.
Accordingly the order dated 26.11.2005 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to re-consider the daim of the petitioner for such compassionate appointment in light of the judgments of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Mishra as well as Abeshek Kumar Pandey (supra), preferably within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the authority concerned. The authority concerned shall pass a reasoned speaking order.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally."
3. Questioning the said order, a Special Appeal (Defective) No. 1088 of 2007 (State of U.P. and another v. Maya Devi), was preferred. Thereafter, on 05.12.2007, the Executive Engineer, National Highway Nirma?a Vibhaga, Bareilly, negated the claim of the mother of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment. In the meantime, the Special Appeal (Defective) No.?1088 of 2007 was under some misconception, connected with Special Appeal No.?1639 of 2007, in which the issue relating to the course in technical education governed by the National Council for Teacher's Education Act, 1993, was the subject matter of challenge and being connected with the Special Appeal (Defective) No.?1088 of 2007 came to be dismissed on 31.07.2009, following the judgment in Special Appeal No.?1639 of 2007. The mother of the writ petitioner also expired on 06.05.2008, and writ petitioner's date of birth being 11.06.1995. Thereafter, the petitioner made correspondence with the respondents for compassionate appointment. However, the Executive Engineer, National Highway Public Works Department, proceeded to issue a communication letter dated 03.05.2025 stating that the claim of the mother of the writ petitioner had already been decided and rejected by virtue of the order dated 05.12.2007, and a copy was annexed with the communication dated 03.05.2025.
4. Questioning the order dated 05.12.2007, negating the claim of the mother of the writ petitioner as communicated on 03.05.2025, the present petition has been preferred.
5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the rights stood crystallized in favour of the mother of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment pursuant to the order passed by a coordinate bench in Writ Petition No.?1439 of 2006 on 16.01.2006 and whatever might be, the special appeal was dismissed on 31.07.2009 though it was wrongly connected but the final result is dismissal of the appeal. Thus, now the writ petitioner steps into the shoes of the mother and is entitled to accord compassionate appointment.
6. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that whatever might be, once the mother's claim stood negated by virtue of the order dated?05.12.2007 and the same remained unchallenged till the date of the mother of the writ petitioner, since she expired on?06.05.2008, the said order attained finality and now it is not open for the writ petitioner to question the said order. Further submission is that looking into the order which is annexed with the writ petition, the date of birth is recorded as?11.06.1995, thus, in the year?2003 he became 18 years old and in the year?2016 he became 21 years old. Thus, the writ petition so preferred after a long span of time that too without explaining the inordinate delay and explained delay would not cloth any right to the writ petitioner to claim compassionate appointment, particularly, once the object of compassionate appointment is to provide succour to the dependent family and in case the writ petitioner has sustained himself for whatever reasons might be for such a long period then it can be safely inferred that the writ petitioner was not in a destitute state.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.
8. Facts are not in issue. It is not in issue that the writ petitioner's mother had claimed compassionate appointment consequent to the death of the father, and the writ petition so preferred came to be allowed on?16.05.2021 being Writ Petition No.1439 of 2006, against which an intra?court appeal (Appeal No.?1088 of 2007) was preferred and in the meantime, on?05.12.2007, an order came to be passed rejecting the claim of the mother of the petitioner, and the appeal came to be dismissed on?31.07.2009 while being connected with the matters which was related to each other being Special Appeal No.?1639 of 2007. The petitioner kept silent and he did not raise his claim after attainment of majority, however, the present writ petition has been preferred on 14.10.2025 on the ground that the order dated?05.12.2007 negating the claim of the mother of the petitioner was communicated on?03.05.2025.
9. Unfortunately, the ground, so taken, is not worth acceptance, particularly when the death of the petitioner's mother on?06.05.2008, the right of the mother of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment stood extinguished, however, now it is not open for the writ petitioner, post attainment of the majority in the year?2013/2016 to approach this Court for compassionate appointment after such a long span of time without explaining the inordinate delay and explained delay. As a matter of fact, compassionate appointment is an exception to Articles?14 and?16 of the Constitution of India.
10. However, looking into the fact that the writ petitioner could sustain himself for such a long period and the explanation, so taken, is not worth consideration. Thus, This Court does not find the present case to be a fit case for interference, accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed.
11. The judgment in Special Appeal No.?1639 of?2007 is taken on record and marked as Appendix A.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
November 13, 2025
A. Prajapati
