Pradeep Malik Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85555

Court No. - 5

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6656 of 2025

Petitioner :- Pradeep Malik Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Balwant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chanchal Kumar Rai

¶5

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Balwant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2-State and Shri Chanchal Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents No.3 and 4.

¶7

The petitioner has prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus to decide the representation dated 05.02.2025 to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground.

¶8

Facts of this case are in brief. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 01.03.2014. The mother of the petitioner instituted proceedings before the competent court for issuance of a succession certificate. The order in this regard was passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chitrakoot on 12.12.2015. The petitioner's mother gave an application for appointing him on compassionate ground to the competent authority on 06.02.2016. Since no action was taken, the petitioner's mother approached the Principal Secretary, Transport Corporation, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The Principal Secretary, Transport Corporation, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow issued a letter dated

¶9

17.05.2017 for processing the application of the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate ground. The respondents failed to act upon the aforesaid directions as well.

¶10

The delay of three years from the date of death of the employee till the year 2017 has been satisfactorily explained. However, the petitioner failed to approach this Court for eight years thereafter. This writ petition was filed finally in the year 2025.

¶11

Submission of Shri Balwant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that delay was occasioned by the fact that the petitioner is an illiterate person does not commend itself to acceptance. The petitioner and his mother had approached the competent court for obtaining the succession certificate. They had also promptly filed an application before the Principal Secretary, Transport Corporation, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and had approached the Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC)/authority in time. This clearly shows that the petitioner and his family were fully aware of their rights and were exercising them from time to time.

¶12

The second contention of Shri Shri Balwant Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that he was regularly filing representations before the authorities shall now be considered. The representations and proof of their filing is not in the record. Moreover, mere filing of

¶13

representations before the authorities is not sufficient cause for condonation of delay or laches on part of the petitioner. The discussion has advantage of good authorities in point.

¶14

The Supreme Court in C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and another reported at (2008) 10 SCC 115 held as under:

¶15

"Every representation to the Government for relief, may not be replied on merits. Representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. In regard to representations unrelated to the department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern the department or to inform the appropriate department. Representations with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies to such representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim."

¶16

The Supreme Court in Gian Singh Mann v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and anoth er reported at (1980) 4 SCC 266 held as under:

¶17

"3. In regard to the petitioner's claim for promotion to the Selection Grade post in the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) with effect from 1st November, 1966, and to a post in the Punjab Superior Judicial Service with effect from 1st May, 1967 on the basis that a post had been reserved in each of the services for a member of the Scheduled Castes, it seems to us that the claim is grossly belated. The writ petition was filed in this Court in 1978, about eleven years after the dates from which the promotions are

¶18

claimed. There is no valid explanation for the delay. That the petitioner was making successive representations during this period can hardly justify our overlooking the inordinate delay. Relief must be refused on that ground. It is not necessary, in the circumstances, to consider the further submission of the respondents that the provision on which the petitioner relies as the basis of his claim is concerned with the appointment only of members of the Scheduled Castes to posts in the Punjab Superior Judicial Service and not to recruitment by promotion to that service."

¶19

The law laid down in C. Jacob (supra) and Gian Singh Mann (supra) by the Supreme Court is applicable to the facts of this case and in view of the laches on part of the petitioner the writ petition is liable to the dismissed on ground of laches alone.

¶20

The law laid down by the Supreme Court in C. Jacob and Gian Singh Mann (supra) shall be applicable to the facts of this case and will govern its fate.

¶21

The petitioner claims that he is 28 years of age. He has an elder brother who is 44 years of age. Besides he has three elder sisters who are also 30 or 40 years of age. Most of the children of the deceased were major at the time of his death. It is evident that the petitioner and other legal heirs had slept over the issue for all these years. Lack of diligence on part of the petitioner towards his cause is thus established.

¶22

The explanation tendered by the petitioner for 8 years

¶23

delay in approaching this Court is not satisfactory and is rejected. The writ petition is barred by delay and laches.

¶24

There is another facet to the matter. The compassionate ground appointments are a welfare measure intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to immediately tide over the sudden financial crisis caused by the death of the employee. Compassionate ground appointments are not intended to create a windfall for the kin of the deceased but only to keep the kitchen fire burning.

¶25

The legislative intent and judicial rationale for appointment on compassionate grounds is subserved only when an application for appointment on compassionate grounds is made in time proximate to the death of the employee, and the dependent claimant is vigilant about his/her rights, and promptly files the writ petition in case the application is not processed by the authorities. Failure of such claimants to diligently prosecute their cause for appointment by not filing the writ petition on a timely basis is not countenanced by law. The law has set its face against delay or apathy on part of the dependent who seeks appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶26

The delay in approaching the Court for grant of appointment on compassionate ground gives rise to an inference that the financial destitution caused by the death of the deceased employee has ceased to exist. There are

¶27

authorities in point to support this proposition.

¶28

This Court in Ashish Yadav Vs. Managing Director, UP State Road Transport Corporation and others rendered in Writ A No. 17483 of 2024 ) states as under:

¶29

"25. A Division Bench of this Court after citing authorities in point also concluded that financial penury ceases to exist in case an application was made long years after the death of the employee in the case of Smt. Sonal Laviniya and another vs. Union of India and another reported at 2003 (5) AWC 4070:

¶30

The purpose of providing such an employment has been to render the financial assistance to the family, which has lost the bread earner immediately after the death of the employee. If the application has been filed after expiry of 9½ years the element of immediate need stood evaporated and there was no occasion for the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for such a relief. The observation made by the learned Tribunal are in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and no exception can be taken out."

¶31

More recently the Supreme Court in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. reported at 2025 SCC OnLine SC 290 while examining the impact of delay in filing application for appointment on compassionate grounds held as under:

¶32

"11.(j). An application for compassionate appointment has to be made immediately upon death/incapacitation and in any case within a reasonable period thereof or else a presumption could be drawn that the family of the deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need of financial assistance. Such appointment not being a vested right, the right to apply cannot be exercised at any time in future and it cannot be offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.

¶33

Long lapse of time can be a factor for denying compassionate appointment. A presumption is legitimately drawn in cases of claims lodged belatedly that the family of the deceased/incapacitated employee is not in immediate need of financial assistance. However, what would be a reasonable time would largely depend on the policy/scheme for compassionate appointment under consideration. If any time limit has been prescribed for making an application and the claimant applies within such period, lapse of time cannot be assigned as a ground for rejection."

¶34

The holdings in Ajithkumar G.K. (supra) and Ashish Yadav (supra) are applicable to the facts of this case and the matter is liable to be decided in that light. In the facts of this case and as a result of the long lapse of time since the death of the deceased the financial crisis cannot be said to be still subsisting.

¶35

The concept of compassionate ground appointments is a welfare measure taken by a model employer. However, there is a caution. There exists no vested right to be appointed on a post on compassionate grounds. Further an overliberal interpretation of the right to the appointments on compassionate ground will open a floodgate of such appointments and turn them into a veritable source of recruitment. An unjustified generous approach in compassionate ground which is not consistent with the applicable service rules will confer benefit to underserving and ineligible candidates, and simultaneously deny the

¶36

rights and lawful claims of eligible and meritorious candidates from getting appointment to government posts.

¶37

Treating compassionate ground appointments as an unconditional and vested right or making it a source of recruitment will amount to reservation based on inheritance. Such action will shear the thin veil of legality which protects such appointments from the vice of unconstitutionality. The very concept of compassionate ground will then be exposed to the wrath of Articles 14, 15, 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶38

The purpose of grant of compassionate ground appointments can be subserved and their constitutionality can be saved only by strict compliance of the rules governing the grant of compassionate ground appointments and by rigorous adherence to the holdings of constitutional courts in point.

¶39

In light of above discussion, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds is barred by delay and laches.

¶40

In the wake of the preceding discussion, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed.

¶41

It is equally true that the petitioner has to succeed on the footing of his own merits and not the default of the respondents. However, in the facts of this case, this Court finds that there was no good cause for the failure of the

¶42

respondents to take a decision on the application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground which was made in the year 2016.

¶43

In the wake of the preceding discussion this Court finds that the respondents had failed to take a decision on the application for for grant of appointment on compassionate ground.

¶44

Hence, costs of Rs.1 lakh is imposed upon the respondent-UPSRTC. The said costs shall be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The respondent No.2Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) shall be responsible for ensuring that the aforesaid costs are paid to the petitioner and his family on a timely basis within the aforesaid time frame.

¶45

Order Date :- 21.5.2025 Ashish Tripathi

¶46

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pradeep Malik v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Malik v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases