HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 23098 of 2018 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Lalit Shukla, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. No one is present for respondent no. 4. Instant petition has been filed with following reliefs:- "a. That by issuing writ order in the nature of certiorari, the impugned order dated 26.10.2017 passed by O.P No. 2 contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition may kindly be quashed. b. That by issuing writ or direction of appropriate nature the nature of mandamus the O.P. No. 2 may be commanded to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the Government Order dated 17.06.2014 taking into account the documents filed on 17.05.2018 (Annexure No. 12) as well as contained in Annexure No. 3 to 8 of the writ pension. c. Any other writ, order or direction which is deemed fit and proper in the facts & circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the Opp. parties. d. Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner and against the Opp. Parties." The contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the sole ground that a suit bearing no. 1492 of 2006 is pending consideration before the family court at Lucknow, therefore, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner. She has Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Km. Vishwa Mohini, Rajesh Kumar, Vimal Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Arvind Kumar Jauhari, Lalit Shukla Ravindra Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Secondary Edu. And Ors. .....Respondent(s) pointed out that, on 18.12.2024, the suit no. 1492 of 2006 has been decided finally in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the reason which was assigned while rejecting the claim of the petitioner is nonest at this stage. She submitted that the respondent no. 2/Principal, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, may be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh in light of the judgment and order dated 18 12.2024 passed in Suit No. 1492 of 2006, relevant adhering to the other relevant laws. In addition, she submits that in fact the impugned order finds mention the regular suit no. 1492 of 2006, though, subsequently, the same was dismissed in default and while filing the recall application, the same was registered as Misc. Case No. 209 of 2017 as a new number, therefore, the regular suit no. 1492 of 2006 which was in the way of compassionate appointment to the petitioner is now finally decided. Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 & 3 has no objection in the event that the pending suit no. 1492 of 2006 has been decided finally. Considering the submissions of counsel for the parties and particularly the reasons assigned while rejecting the claim of the petitioner that the civil suit is pending between the parties, which has been decided on 18.12.2024 by the family court, the order dated 26.10.2017 is unsustainable at this stage, thus, the same is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent no. 2/Principal, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, to decide the claim of the petitioner a fresh, within a period of two months while adhering to the relevant rules and keeping in the mind the judgment and order dated 18.12.2024, passed in civil suit no. 1492 of 2006. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition is hereby disposed of. October 31, 2025 Mayank WRIA No. 23098 of 2018 2 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench