Disposed¶19

Sonu v. Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Lko. Thru. Managing Director Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC29 May 2026WRIA/5693/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; WRIT - A No. 5693 of 2026; Sonu v. Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.; compassionate appointment; dying-in-harness quota; representation dated 18-8-2025; order dated 01.06.2016; widow's prior application under Dying-in-Harness Rules; brother of deceased employee; non-challenge of rejection order; non-joinder of widow; amendment application within ten days; listing second week of July 2026; Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.; decided May 29, 2026; Alok Saran for respondents.

What did the court decide?

No final relief; petition adjourned with directions - petitioner to file an appropriate amendment application within ten days and the matter to be listed in the second week of July, 2026. ¶19

Sonu vs Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Lko. Thru. Managing Director Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No final relief; petition adjourned with directions - petitioner to file an appropriate amendment application within ten days and the matter to be listed in the second week of July, 2026.

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue commanding the opposite parties to consider and decide the petitioner's representation dated 18-8-2025 for compassionate appointment on a suitable post under dying-in-harness quota. +1 more

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The court directed that an appropriate amendment application be filed by the petitioner within a period of ten days, permitting amendment of the petition at counsel's request.

¶19

Key takeaways

The court recorded that the petitioner had not challenged the order dated 01.06.2016, had only prayed for decision of his representation, and had not even arrayed the widow of Late Arvind Kumar (his sister-in-law) as a respondent.obiter¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim order in WRIT - A No. 5693 of 2026 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 2; Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.; decided May 29, 2026). Sonu, brother of deceased employee Late Arvind Kumar, sought a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties, including opposite party no.3 (Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.), to consider and decide his representation dated 18-8-2025 for compassionate appointment on a suitable post under the dying-in-harness quota. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed to Annexure-3, an order dated 01.06.2016 sent to the petitioner's mother, stating that Late Arvind Kumar was married and his widow had already made an application for compassionate appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, and therefore the brother's case could not be considered. The court observed that the petitioner had not challenged that order and had not arrayed the widow as a respondent; on counsel's request it permitted an appropriate amendment application to be filed within ten days and listed the matter for the second week of July, 2026. No precedent was cited and no substantive determination was made at this stage.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 5693 of 2026

Sonu

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Lko. Thru. Managing Director Lko. And 2 Others

¶7

anagng recor o. n	ers	.....Respo	ndent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Yogendra Nath Narayan Gupta	Srivastava,	Laxmi
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Alok Saran

¶8

Court No. - 2

¶9

HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

¶10

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Alok Saran, who appears on behalf of the respondents.

¶11

This petition has been filed with the following main prayer:-

¶12

"Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
MANDAMUS thereby commanding the opposite parties
to consider and decide the representation dated
18-8-2025 (contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ
petition), preferred by the petitioner before the
opposite party no.3 with regard to compassionate
appointment on a suitable post under dying-in-
harness quota in accordance with relevant rules
and policy."

¶13

Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition, which is an order dated 01.06.2016 sent to the mother of the petitioner, wherein it has been stated that Late Arvind Kumar was married and his widow had already made an application for compassionate appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules and therefore the case of the brother of Late Arvind Kumar i.e. the petitioner cannot be considered.

¶14

The petitioner has not challenged such order. He has only prayed that his representation may be be decided. He has not even arrayed his sister-

¶15

WRIA No. 5693 of 2026

¶16

¶17

in-law, widow of Late Arvind Kumar, as respondent in this petition.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, says that he may be allowed to amend the petition.

¶19

Let an appropriate amendment application be filed by the petitioner within a period of ten days.

¶20

List in the s econd week of July, 2026 .

¶21

(Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.)

¶22

May 29, 2026

¶23

Rahul

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAHUL TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sonu v. Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Lko. Thru. Managing Director Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu v. Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Lko. Thru. Managing Director Lko. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Gaya Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Agriculture Edu. and Research Lko. and 2 Others

Dinesh Kumar Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home. U.P. Lko. and Another

Smt. Kaneez Zainab Raza and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Prashant Chaudhary vs U.P. Power Corp. Ltd. Shakti Bhawan Lko. Thru. Chairman and 2 Others

Mohd. Izhar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Madhyamik Siksha Lko. and 6 Others

Ashok Kumar Pandey vs State of Up Thru. Special Secy. Technical Education Lko. and 2 Others