MOHAMMAD YOUSUF v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. FINANCE DEPTT. LKO. AND 2 OTHERS
WRIA/10112/2025 · 2025-09-03
Manish Mathur
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 162079 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 162079 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10112 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.
2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to concerned authority for providing compassionate appointment to petitioner.
3. It has been submitted that petitioner's elder sister late Afsana Bano while employed in the Class-IV category in the office of District Entertainment Officer passed away on 10.04.2002. It is submitted that petitioner was dependent on his sister but since at the time of her demise, he was minor, he made an application for compassionate appointment in the year 2014 upon attaining majority but no final decision has been taken till date.
4. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 02.09.2025, which are taken on record and as per which it has been submitted that petitioner's claim is highly belated without any cogent explanation for approaching this Court after ten years of attaining majority.
5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is admitted in paragraph-12 of the writ petition that deceased Afsana Bano passed away on 10.04.2002. In paragraph-16 of the petition, it has been admitted that petitioner attained majority in the year 2014 whereafter he filed an application for compassionate appointment. There is absolutely no cogent explanation Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ganga Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Mohammad Yousuf .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
indicated in the writ petition as to why petitioner is approaching this Court after almost eleven years of attaining majority.
6. It is settled law that compassionate appointment is required to be provided to the family of deceased employee in order to tide over immediate financial distress and cannot be a mode of providing alternative employment.
7. In view of discussion made hereinabove, this Court does not find any good ground to grant indulgence.
8. The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost. September 3, 2025 Satish WRIA No. 10112 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench