HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10235 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Since reasons for rejection of petitioner's application for compassionate appointment are evident from the impugned order itself, filing of counter affidavit is being dispensed with and petition is being adjudicated upon at the admission stage itself. 3. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 11.07.2025 whereby petitioner's application for compassionate appointment in terms of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in- Harness Rules of 1974 has been rejected. Further prayer for a direction to concerned authority for providing compassionate appointment has also been made. 4. It has been submitted that petitioner's father Late Basant Prasad Tiwari passed away in harness on 21.11.2000 whereafter an application was filed by his widow within a period of 5 years from his demise and vide order dated 23.01.2001, it was proposed to provide compassionate appointment. However since both sons of deceased also submitted applications for compassionate appointment, dispute was created due to which none of the persons were provided any compassionate appointment. One of the sons' Alok Kumar Tiwari also filed writ petition before this Court which however was subsequently dismissed as not pressed. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sudhir Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Neeraj Tiwari .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. The impugned order reveals that it was account of dispute between family members and pendency of writ petitions that the aspect of grant of compassionate appointment could not be finalized. 6. It is submitted that a perusal of impugned order will reveal that apart from rejection of petitioner's application for compassionate appointment on merits, the same has been rejected also on the ground that the said application was preferred beyond a period of 5 years which is prescribed in terms of Rule 5 (i) (iii) of the Rules of 1974. 7. It is submitted that the reasoning for rejection of petitioner's application for compassionate appointment being beyond limitation period is also without jurisdiction since power to condone delay in filing application for compassionate appointment vests only in the State Government in terms of proviso to Rule 5(i) (iii) of Rules of 1974. 8. Learned State counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that the impugned order clearly indicates the fact that in view of passing of almost 24 years since demise of petitioner's father, need for providing immediate compassionate appointment stands defeated and is one of the reasons for rejection of petitioner's claim. 9. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the impugned order, reasons for rejection of petitioner's application for compassionate appointment are self evident and reveals that apart from rejecting petitioner's case on merits, the aspect of her application being filed beyond the period of limitation indicated in Rule 5(i)(iii) of Rules of 1974 has also been made a ground. 10. A perusal of proviso to Rule 5(i)(iii) of the Rules of 1974 makes it evident that power to condone delay in filing an application for compassionate appointment beyond a period of 5 years from the date of demise of the earning member of family vests with the State Government. 11. In such circumstances, in terms of specific statutory provisions, it was incumbent upon Opposite Party No. 5 i.e. Commandant, XI Battalion P.A.C., Sitapur to have referred the case to the State Government for taking WRIA No. 10235 of 2025 2 a decision in terms of proviso to Rule 5(i)(iii) of the Rules of 1974 instead of rejecting petitioner's application on his own. In view of aforesaid aspect, the rejection of petitioner's application on that score is therefore without jurisdiction. 12. Considering aforesaid aspect, the impugned order dated 11.07.2025 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari directing the State Government to take a decision in terms of proviso to Rule 5(i)(iii) of the Rules of 1974, expeditiously within a period of six weeks from the date of a certified copy of this order, is served upon opposite party no.1 i.e. Additional Chief Secretary/ Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Uttar Pradeh Civil Secretariat, Lucknow. 13. 13. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. September 4, 2025 Subodh/- WRIA No. 10235 of 2025 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench