HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 5269 of 2023 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned state counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 8th June 2023, whereby application for compassionate appointment in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 has been rejected. 3. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that earlier petitioner's father late Naanmoon Pandey had passed away in harness on 15th January 2011 wherereafter petitioner had submitted his application for compassionate appointment on 4th April 2011 but the same was not considered in view of pendency of case crime No. 145 of 2011 under sections 498A, 302, and 201 of the IPC, as well as case crime No. 1161 of 2011 under section 439 of IPC in the police station concerned. It is submitted that subsequently in sessions trial number 11 of 2015 arising out of case crime No. 145 of 2011, petitioner has been acquitted by means of judgment and order dated 7th March 2019 which has attained finality but since opposite parties were not considering petitioner's case despite their acquittal, he was compelled to file writ petition No. 3606 of 2023 whereunder directions were issued for consideration afresh. It is submitted that it is in pursuance thereof that impugned order has been passed primarily on the ground that petitioner could not have been provided employment earlier in view of pendency of criminal case against him and the other family members did not apply for compassionate Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shiv Pal Singh, Ambrish Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Vinod Pandey .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) appointment despite being given a chance. 4. It is submitted that the impugned order has thereafter rejected petitioner's candidature without indicating any cogent reasons for the same. 5. It is submitted that once the petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal case lodged against him, it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to have considered the said aspect in terms of Rules of 1974. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order in fact is cryptic in nature. 6. Learned state counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that earlier petitioner's application was not considered in view of pendency of two criminal cases against him. It is submitted that opportunity was granted to other members of the family to apply for compassionate appointment but since they failed to do so, it can be assumed that there is no undue hardship caused to the family. It is also submitted that there is no provision under Rules of 1974 to keep an application pending till acquittal of the applicant. 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of the material on record, it is admitted that petitioner had earlier submitted an application for compassionate appointment within the period provided for in terms of Rule 5 of Rules of 1974. The same was rejected on the ground of pendency of two criminal cases against him. It is also submitted that subsequently petitioner has been acquitted in the aforesaid criminal cases by means of judgment and order dated 7th March 2019. The impugned order has been passed subsequent thereto. 8. However from a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that petitioner's application has been rejected merely indicating him to be unfit for being considered for compassionate appointment. The impugned order however does not record any reasons for indicating petitioner to be unfit for being considered for compassionate appointment. The aspect indicated in the impugned order is only with regard to pendency of criminal cases against him at the time of submission of application. The said aspect would be irrelevant once petitioner stood acquitted from the criminal charges and therefore the very basic of declaring petitioner ineligible stood obliterated. WRIA No. 5269 of 2023 2 9. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order being cryptic in nature with regard to petitioner being ineligible, the impugned order dated 8th June, 2023 is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari. Further a writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite party No.4 i.e. Superintendent of Police, Balrampur, District Balrampur to consider petitioner's application for compassionate appointment afresh in the light of provisions of Rules of 1974 rules and looking into the aspect of undue hardship faced by petitioner's family. The other relevant factors including financial distress being faced by family shall also be taken into consideration. Appropriate orders with regard to same shall be passed within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon concerned authority after affording opportunity of hearing to all heirs of the deceased. 10. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 25, 2025 prabhat WRIA No. 5269 of 2023 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench