Mamta Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Transport and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mamta Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Transport and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, whose father died in harness on 21.08.2000, was entitled to compassionate appointment when the prayer was made after a lapse of 25 years, and whether the Division Bench should interfere with the learned Single Judge's dismissal of that prayer. +2 more

Court's answer

No interference is warranted: the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the claim to compassionate appointment made after a lapse of 25 years is in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Canara Bank (supra), and the appeal lacks substance.

Ratio / Principle

Once the learned Single Judge categorically concluded that no case was made out for grant of compassionate appointment, there was no occasion for the Court to entertain the prayer for decision on the pending representation; granting that prayer would essentially permit the respondents to sit over the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which cannot be countenanced.

Key takeaways

The application (C.M. Application No. 1 of 2025) for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed for the reasons stated therein, supported by affidavit; the delay is condoned.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Special Appeal (Defective) No. 168 of 2025 (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Arun Bhansali, CJ and Jaspreet Singh, J.; Order Date 25.4.2025) — dismissed. The appellant, whose father died in harness on 21.08.2000, failed in her writ petition (Writ-A No. 2628 of 2025, dismissed by order dated 06.03.2025) seeking compassionate appointment, the learned Single Judge having followed the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Canara Bank Vs. Ajithkumar G.K., Civil Appeal No. 255 of 2025 (decided 11.02.2025) to hold that a prayer for compassionate appointment made after a lapse of 25 years cannot be granted. Delay in filing the appeal was condoned (C.M. Application No. 1 of 2025). The appellant's fallback plea — that since under Rule 5 of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 the State may relax the time for making the application, the respondents be directed to decide her pending representation — was rejected: once the Single Judge had categorically concluded that no case was made out for compassionate appointment, there was no occasion to consider the representation prayer, and granting it would permit the respondents to sit over the Single Judge's order. Finding the impugned order in consonance with the Supreme Court's law, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23663-DB

Chief Justice's Court

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 168 of 2025

Appellant :- Mamta Devi

Respondent :- State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Transport and 6 others

Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Pathak, Neeraj Kumar Baghel, Praveen yadav

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Pradeep Kumar Shukla, Isha Mittal (A.C.S.C.)

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.

An application (C.M. Application No. 1 of 2025) has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

For the reasons stated in the application, supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

This appeal is directed against order dated 06.03.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 2628 of 2025 by learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking compassionate appointment, has been dismissed.

The petition was filed by the appellant seeking compassionate appointment on account of death of her father who died in harness on 21.08.2000. The learned Single Judge, after referring to the judgment in Canara Bank Vs. Ajithkumar G.K., Civil Appeal No. 255 of 2025 , decided on 11.02.2025 by Hon'ble Supreme Court, came to the conclusion that the prayer seeking compassionate appointment which has been made after lapse of 25 years cannot be granted, dismissed the writ petition.

Counsel for the appellant attempted to make submissions that learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ

petition as the appellant had made an alternative prayer for decision on the representation made by her. It is sought to be contended that as under Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, the State has power to relax the time within which application is required to be made, the respondents be directed to decide the pending representation made by the appellant.

We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record.

The first prayer made in the writ petition pertained to the grant of compassionate appointment. Once, the learned Single Judge, based on the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank (supra) , came to a categorical conclusion that no case was made out for grant of compassionate appointment, there was then no occasion for the Court to consider the prayer pertaining to the decision on the representation pending with the respondents.

The prayer now again sought to be made by the appellant, if granted, would essentially permit the respondents to sit over the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which situation cannot be countenanced.

In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned which is in consonance with the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank (supra) .

There is no substance in the appeal, the same is therefore, dismissed.

Order Date :- 25.4.2025 Rakesh/AHA

(Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali,CJ)

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench