Disposed¶12

Sadhana v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 May 2025WRIA/6882/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, WRIT - A No. 6882 of 2025, Sadhana v. State of U.P. and 2 Others, decided 17.5.2025 by Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. Compassionate appointment claim filed long after husband's death in harness (29.05.2012); repeated applications not considered; petition for mandamus to relax the 5-year bar dismissed as barred by huge delay/laches; object of compassionate appointment (immediate financial crisis) held absent at belated stage; relaxation left to State Government; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition seeking mandamus to relax the 5-year bar was disposed of, the question of relaxation being left to the State Government. ¶12

Sadhana vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:82085

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6882 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Sadhana Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Singh,Indra Raj Singh,Ratnesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Tej Bhan Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶6

It is not under dispute that petitioner's husband died-inharnesss on 29.05.2012 i.e. about 13 years ago and petitioner was well qualified even before it and she further studies thereafter also.

¶7

According to petitioner, she has submitted application in the year 2012 and thereafter she has repeatedly submitted application, however, her claim for compassionate appointment was not considered.

¶8

The petitioner has not approached this Court earlier to agitate her grievance and now when her application being beyond 5 years after her husband died-in-harness, she has approached the concerned authority that such bar be relaxed.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioner refers a document annexed along with the writ petition that matter is presently seized with State Government, the appropriate authority to relax the said bar.

¶10

Learned counsel for respondent submits that at this belated stage, when petitioner was well aware about the bar of 5 years and she has not pressed her application or approached this Court, at relevant time, her claim may not be considered.

¶11

I have considered the above submissions and perused the record. The petitioner is not agile towards her right despite she was well qualified for consideration for compassionate appointment. She has not pressed her application or approached this Court within 5 years to claim compassionate appointment and now at a very belated stage, she has approached this Court that bar of 5 years be relaxed so that she may be considered for compassionate appointment, after 15 years of her husband's death.

¶12

The aforesaid delay is very huge, therefore, the prayer as mentioned in this writ petition to issue mandamus to relax bar cannot be granted on a simple ground that at such belated stage object of compassionate appointment i.e. to tide over immediate financial crisis does not exist, however, it is up to the State Government to relax the bar of 5 year or not. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 17.5.2025 P. Pandey

¶14

Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sadhana v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadhana v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manoj vs State of Up through Secretary Home Affiars Up at Lucknow

Kamla Devi vs State of Up and 4 Others

Sudha Devi vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Priyanka Bajpai vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ayush Upadhyay vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others