Disposed¶19

Keshav Upadhyay v. U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban ) Thru. Managing Director Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2025WRIA/7521/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban); Keshav Upadhyay; Board of Directors no final decision; fresh representation; opposite party no. 2 Chief Engineer (E-3); letter dated 21-03-2024 ignored; 15 days to file; decision within two months; writ disposed of; Shree Prakash Singh, J.; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; 2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh representation, raising all claims and grounds, before opposite party no. 2 / The Chief Engineer (E-3), U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban), Lucknow within 15 days; upon such representation being moved, opposite party no. 2 to consider and decide it within a further period of two months in accordance with law, ignoring the letter dated 21-03-2024. ¶19

Keshav Upadhyay Vs U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban ) Thru. Managing Director Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose claim for compassionate appointment was left undecided by the respondent-corporation despite successive applications, should be permitted to move a fresh representation and have opposite party no. 2 (Chief Engineer (E-3), U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban), Lucknow) consider and decide it within a fixed period of time.

¶13

Court's answer

Without entering into the merits of the case, the petitioner was given liberty to move a fresh representation, raising all his claims and grounds, before opposite party no. 2, i.e. the Chief Engineer (E-3), U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban), Lucknow.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The fresh representation is to be moved within 15 days from the date of the order, and it will be entertained only if moved within that aforesaid period.

¶18

Key takeaways

If the representation is moved within the aforesaid period, opposite party no. 2 is directed to consider and decide it within a further period of two months, in accordance with law, ignoring the letter dated 21-03-2024.ratio¶18
With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Writ-A No. 7521 of 2025 (Shree Prakash Singh, J.; November 11, 2025): The petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment with U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) had been placed before the Board of Directors without any final decision, and a second application after one year also remained pending. Without entering into the merits, the Court gave the petitioner liberty to move a fresh representation raising all claims and grounds before opposite party no. 2 / The Chief Engineer (E-3), U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban), Lucknow within 15 days, and directed that, if so moved, it be considered and decided within a further period of two months in accordance with law, ignoring the letter dated 21-03-2024. Writ petition disposed of.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 7521 of 2025

Keshav Upadhyay

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban ) Thru. Managing Director Lko. And Another

¶7

o. n noer	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Savita Jain
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Rishabh Kapoor

¶8

Court No. - 18

¶9

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rishabh Kapoor, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

¶11

On 14-07-2025, the following order was passed :-

¶12

"Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted a week's time to seek instructions as to the impediment in consideration of the caim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. List thereafter as fresh. "

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter pertains to the compassionate appointment and on an application made by the petitioner, the same was put up before the Board of Directors of the respondent-corporation, but, no final decision is taken and it was intimated that the decision will be taken later on. She submitted that after one year, the petitioner made another application, which is still pending consideration. She submitted that the interest of justice would be sub-served if this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to give liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh representation before the opposite party no. 2/The Chief Engineer (E-3), U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban), Lucknow and the opposite party no. 2 may be directed to consider and decide the same within the stipulated period of time, as may be fixed by this court.

¶14

Learned counsel for the opposite parties has no objection to the

¶15

WRIA No. 7521 of 2025

¶16

¶17

contentions aforesaid.

¶18

Be that as it may, without entering into the merits of the case,the petitioner is given liberty to move a fresh representation, while raising all his claims and grounds before the opposite party no. 2/The Chief Engineer (E-3), U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban), Lucknow within the period of 15 days form today and if such representation is moved within aforesaid period, the opposite party no. 2 is directed to consider and decide the same within further period of two months, in accordance with law, ignoring the letter dated 21-03-2024.

¶19

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is hereby disposed of.

¶20

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶21

November 11, 2025 AKS

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Keshav Upadhyay v. U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban ) Thru. Managing Director Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Keshav Upadhyay v. U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban ) Thru. Managing Director Lko. and Another

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

Sheela Vishwakarma Vs King George Medical University Lko. U.P. Thru. Registrar and 3 Others

Vijay Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education, Lko. and Others

Saqeel Ahmad Vs U.P. Bhumi Sudhar Nigam Thru Its Managing Director Lko.andORS.

Anand Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Panchayat Raj Deptt.Lko.and Ors.

Jagdamba Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy.Dairy Development Civil Sectt.and Ors.

Archana Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Basic Edu.Civil Sectt.Lko.and Ors.