Disposed¶16

Sakshi Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2026WRIA/19544/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court interim order, WRIT - A No. - 19544 of 2025 (Sakshi Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others), January 7, 2026, Manju Rani Chauhan J.: grievance that rejection of petitioner's compassionate-ground appointment claim (Dying-in-Harness Rules) was passed without awaiting the State Government's decision directed by order dated 29.08.2024 in Writ Petition No.13047 of 2024, alleged to be in violation/contempt; Court granted two weeks' time to respondent counsel (Umesh Chandra Kesarwani) to take instructions and rectify; matter listed fresh on 28.01.2026; no final decision on merits.

What did the court decide?

Two weeks' time granted to learned counsel for the respondent to take instructions in the matter and rectify the mistake ('Ordered accordingly'); case to be put up fresh on 28.01.2026. ¶16

Sakshi Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 19544 of 2025

Sakshi Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Shailesh Kumar Pathak, Shiv Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Umesh Chandra Kesarwani

¶8

Court No. - 52

¶9

HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier Writ Petition No.13047 of 2024 (Sakshi Singh vs. State of U.P. & others) was filed by the petitioner with a prayer to direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate grounds. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by order dated 29.08.2024 directing the District Basic Education Officer, District Chitrakoot to transmit all necessary papers and documents pertaining to the appointment of the petitioner under the Dying-in-Harness Rules before the competent authority of the State Government, who in turn shall take a decision in the matter most expeditiously and positively within a period of three months from the date, the papers and documents were provided by the concerned District Basic Education Officer.

¶11

In compliance with the aforesaid order, the petitioner moved an application before the authorities along with a certified copy of the order dated 29.08.2024. Although the concerned District Basic Education Officer, Chitrakoot, transmitted all the necessary papers before the State Government, but without awaiting the decision of the State Government, the impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s claim has been passed. The same is in violation of the earlier order passed by this Court and amounts to contempt.

¶12

On the aforesaid, Mr. Umesh Chandra Kesarwani, learned counsel for the respondent-BSA requests for two weeks' time to take instructions in the

¶13

WRIA No. 19544 of 2025

¶14

¶15

matter as well as rectify the mistake. Ordered accordingly.

¶16

Put up this case on 28.01.2026, as fresh.

¶17

(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)

¶18