Dismissed¶8

Satish Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC20 Jan 2025WRIA/583/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; belated/delayed claim; father died in harness 2003; five-year limitation for filing claim; no consideration after two decades; object is to tide over immediate financial crisis; Tinku vs. State of Haryana and others, 2024 INSC 867 (Supreme Court) relied upon; earlier writ Writ A No. 10510/2024 disposed 23.08.2024; Allahabad High Court, WRIT - A No. 583 of 2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:8692; State of U.P.; no illegality in rejection order; petition dismissed 20.1.2025.

What did the court decide?

This Court opines that there is no illegality in the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment; the petition, having lack of merit, is dismissed. ¶8

Satish Kumar vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's belated claim for compassionate appointment (father died in harness in 2003; no application filed within five years) could lawfully be considered notwithstanding the earlier writ direction, i.e., whether the impugned order rejecting the claim was illegal.

¶7

Court's answer

This Court opines that there is no illegality in the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment; the petition, having lack of merit, is dismissed.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

Building on the Supreme Court's reiteration in Tinku (para 16) that the object of compassionate appointment is to tide over an immediate financial crisis which cannot continue for two decades, this Court records that compassionate appointment is an exception and not a right, prescribed provisions must be followed, and the claim has to be filed within 5 years.

¶7

Key takeaways

A compassionate appointment claim can be considered even after 5 years in certain circumstances, but not after 2 decades when there is no circumstance for consideration, as the object of compassionate appointment is frustrated.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.), by order dated 20.1.2025, dismissed WRIT - A No. 583 of 2025 (Satish Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others). The petitioner sought compassionate appointment on the ground that his father died in harness in 2003; he became major in 2006 and pursued the claim, and an earlier petition (Writ A No. 10510/2024, disposed of on 23.08.2024) had directed the respondents to take a decision on his application. The impugned order rejected the claim because no application was filed within five years of the father's death. Relying on the Supreme Court in Tinku vs. State of Haryana and others, 2024 INSC 867 (para 16), the Court held that compassionate appointment is an exception and not a right, aimed at tiding over an immediate financial crisis; claims must ordinarily be filed within five years, and while consideration beyond five years is possible in certain circumstances, a claim cannot be entertained after two decades absent any circumstance for consideration. Finding no illegality in the impugned order, the Court dismissed the petition as lacking merit.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:8692

¶2

Court No. - 10

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 583 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Satish Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Yadav,Zafaryab Hussain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

The petitioner is claiming compassionate appointment on a ground that his father died in harness in the year 2003.

¶7

Sri Anup Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner became major in the year 2006 and thereafter he is trying for compassionate appointment and when his claim was not considered, he approached this Court by way of filing a Writ A No. 10510/2024 which was disposed of vide order dated 23.08.2024 with a direction to take a decision on application of petitioner for compassionate.

¶8

Learned counsel further submits that by impugned order, claim of petitioner has been rejected mainly on a ground that claim ought to have been filed within 5 years after death of his father and since no such application was filed in said timeline, his claim cannot be considered at this belated stage.

¶9

Learned counsel further submits that it was not fault of petitioner rather he has approached earlier also before concerned respondents but his claim could not be considered.

¶10

Ms. Tanu Rupanwal, learned Standing Counsel submits that at this belated stage, no circumstance exists that

¶11

claim of petitioner could be considered.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

¶13

The Supreme Court in Tinku vs. State of Haryana and others, 2024 INSC 867 , vide paragraph 16 has reiterated that object of compassionate appointment is to tide over immediate financial crisis and such crisis cannot continue for two decades. Claim of compassionate appointment is not a right but it is an exception and for that certain provisions have to be followed and claim has to be filed within 5 years. In certain circumstances, claim of petitioner can be considered even after 5 years but not after 2 decades when there is no circumstance for consideration and object of compassionate appointment is frustrated.

¶14

In view of above, this Court is of considered opinion that there is no illegality in impugned order, therefore, petition having lack of merit is dismissed . Order Date :- 20.1.2025 Sinha_N.

¶15

Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satish Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajiv Lochan Pandey vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Hari Shankar Dixit vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dr. Arun Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Mamta Devi vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Harish Kumar Pandey and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Shringar Shukla vs State of U.P. and 3 Others