Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 159502 (ALL)

JITENDRA KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DAIRY DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. LKO. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIA/9496/2025 · 2025-09-24

Abdul Moin

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 9496 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. 1. Heard. 2. Claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has not been approved by the respondent vide order dated 04.06.2025 on the ground that the financial position of the Department is precarious. 3. Shri Pankaj Patel, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 states that the respondents are finding it difficult to even pay salary to the regular employees and post retiral dues to the retired employees on account of precarious financial condition of the Department and consequently the respondents have not found it appropriate to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground considering the precarious financial condition of the Department. 4. Despite the learned counsel appearing for petitioner having sought time on 25.08.2025 to bring some relevant case laws to the effect that even when the respondents are in a precarious financial position, compassionate appointment can still be done, yet today learned cousnel appearing for the petitioner fairly states that there is no case law available on the said point. 5. Obviously there cannot be any occasion for compassionate appointment to be made once the respondents are in a precarious financial position and are finding it difficult even to pay salary to their regular employees. Thus, the reason which has prevailed on the respondents for Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pradeep Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Patel Jitendra Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dairy Development Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) not granting approval for compassionate appointment is found to be tenable despite the existence of various vacancies under the respondents. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition stands dismissed. September 24, 2025 prateek WRIA No. 9496 of 2025 2 (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench