Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45142-DB High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow) Court No. - 1 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 415 of 2023 Appellant :- Surya Prakash Gangwar Alias Surya Prakash Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agriculture U.P. Shasan Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Shailendra Singh Rajawat,Saksham Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. Heard. 2. This is an intra-court appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20.04.2023, passed in Writ-A No. 2718 of 2014, by which the writ petition of the petitioner/appellant has been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the father of the appellant, who is a Class III employee in the Agriculture Department of the State Government, died on 13.08.1991 leaving behind his wife and two small minor children. The son, who is claiming compassionate appointment, attained the age of majority in 2001. It is said that the application for compassionate appointment was submitted in July, 2001 but nothing happened. Ultimately, the aforesaid writ petition was filed in 2014 after the claim was rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the state of penury still continues. The appellant, who is now 43 years of age and holds a B.A. degree, somehow managed to get his sister married during the pendency of the writ petition. The mother of the appellant has died. 5. On being asked to demonstrate the state of penury that is said to continue even after more than three and a half decades since the death of his father, learned counsel for the appellant, despite his best efforts, could not place before the Court the requisite pleadings or documents in support thereof. 6. No doubt, the Full Bench in Shiv Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16214 permits the plea of such state of penury, in which case the delay by itself might not be a consideration against grant of compassionate appointment but then it has to be proved. As regards the contention of appellant's counsel that this aspect is not to be considered by this Court but in fact had to be considered by authorities, who have passed an absolutely cryptic order, we have perused the order dated 22.07.2014, which was impugned before the writ Court. Even if the said communication was made to the petitioner in 2014, the fact remains that the death of the father of the appellant took place on 13.08.1991. The appellant attained the age of majority in 2001 and ever since then has not only acquired the educational qualification of B.A. but has also married his sister. The mother of the appellant is no more. Even when he evokes the writ jurisdiction of a constitutional Court, the minimum that was required to be proved was, at least prima facie, that the state of penury still continues, which could, in the given facts, persuade the writ Court or the appellate Court to remand the matter for reconsideration, which is not the case herein. 7. Looking into the entire scenario, the time gap of more than thirty years and as the appellant is also not even married, we do not find any error in the impugned judgment dated 20.04.2023 passed in Writ-A No. 2718 of 2014 for interfering in the intra-Court appeal. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Manish Kumar, J) (Rajan Roy, J) Order Date :- 4.8.2025 A.Dewal Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench