Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23663-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 168 of 2025 Appellant :- Mamta Devi Respondent :- State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Transport and 6 others Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Pathak, Neeraj Kumar Baghel, Praveen yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Pradeep Kumar Shukla, Isha Mittal (A.C.S.C.) Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J. 1. An application (C.M. Application No. 1 of 2025) has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. This appeal is directed against order dated 06.03.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 2628 of 2025 by learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking compassionate appointment, has been dismissed. 4. The petition was filed by the appellant seeking compassionate appointment on account of death of her father who died in harness on 21.08.2000. The learned Single Judge, after referring to the judgment in Canara Bank Vs. Ajithkumar G.K., Civil Appeal No. 255 of 2025, decided on 11.02.2025 by Hon'ble Supreme Court, came to the conclusion that the prayer seeking compassionate appointment which has been made after lapse of 25 years cannot be granted, dismissed the writ petition. 5. Counsel for the appellant attempted to make submissions that learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition as the appellant had made an alternative prayer for decision on the representation made by her. It is sought to be contended that as under Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, the State has power to relax the time within which application is required to be made, the respondents be directed to decide the pending representation made by the appellant. 6. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record. 7. The first prayer made in the writ petition pertained to the grant of compassionate appointment. Once, the learned Single Judge, based on the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank (supra), came to a categorical conclusion that no case was made out for grant of compassionate appointment, there was then no occasion for the Court to consider the prayer pertaining to the decision on the representation pending with the respondents. 8. The prayer now again sought to be made by the appellant, if granted, would essentially permit the respondents to sit over the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which situation cannot be countenanced. 9. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned which is in consonance with the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank (supra). 10. There is no substance in the appeal, the same is therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 25.4.2025 Rakesh/AHA (Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali,CJ) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench