Reserved HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT – A No. - 17926 of 2022 Sneh Lata …..Petitioners(s) Versus State of U.P. and 3 Others …..Respondents(s) Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Ankur Vishwakarma, Kapoor Chandra Vishwakarma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Jay Ram Pandey Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard Mrs. Sharda Vishwakarma, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ankur Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, learned counsel for the respondent no.3, Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and Mr. Hare Ram, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 27.07.2022 passed by the respondent no.3 as well as further prayer to direct the respondent authority to consider and pass appropriate order to appoint the petitioner on any suitable post as per her qualifications and a further prayer to direct the respondent authority to take the appropriate action against erring officials and recover entire 2 Writ-A No.17926 of 2022 death claims and other payable dues of her mother and may be given to the petitioner and her sister. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s mother, Smt. Sumitra Devi wife of Natheram, who was working as an Assistant Teacher in the Education Department, died in harness on 15.12.1990. At that time, the petitioner was aged about 3 years old, and her sister was aged one and a half years old. The petitioner, being a minor, was unaware of the circumstances surrounding her mother’s death. 4. After attaining the age of majority, the petitioner came to know that her mother, Smt. Sumitra Devi, had been murdered due to a conspiracy allegedly hatched by her father, Natheram. It was further revealed that Shri Natheram was already married to one Smt. Yashoda Devi, who is the real sister of the deceased Smt. Sumitra Devi, and had two sons and two daughters from the said wedlock. The father of the petitioner, Shri Natheram, fraudulently obtained all the death benefits of her mother, Smt. Sumitra Devi, and fraudulently secured a compassionate appointment for her step-brother, Krishna Kant, by submitting a false affidavit and succession certificate. 5. After coming to know about the aforesaid facts, the petitioner approached the District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur, as well as the District Magistrate, Mirzapur, requesting for an inquiry into the matter and seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, along with other service-related benefits arising from the death of her mother, Smt. Sumitra Devi. The petitioner also submitted a complaint before the National Human Rights Commission1. However, Respondent No. 3 rejected her claim on the ground of delay, stating that the application had been filed after a lapse of 33 years from the date of her mother’s death. 6. The authority, while passing the impugned order, has failed to appreciate the undisputed fact that at the time of the petitioner’s mother’s death, the petitioner and her sister were minors and therefore legally incapable of submitting any application. At that time, the 1 NHRC 3 Writ-A No.17926 of 2022 petitioner’s father, Shri Natheram, was employed as a Lekhpal in the Revenue Department. Behind the petitioner’s back, a conspiracy was hatched by Shri Natheram, who wrongfully taken all terminal benefits due to her mother’s death and unlawfully secured an appointment on compassionate ground for his son, Krishna Kant, by submitting forged affidavit and succession certificate. 7. In the case of Ganesh Shankar Shukla vs. State of U.P. and Another2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the strict provision under Rule 5 of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974, cannot be applied rigidly in cases where the applicant was a minor at the time of the death of the deceased employee. The Apex Court further observed that, even though the dependents survived for many years after the demise of the employee relying on the support of relatives, the technical ground of delay in filing the application for compassionate appointment was not sustainable. Consequently, the Court directed appointment to be granted to the applicant. 8. In view of the findings and reasoning recorded in the case of Krishna Kant vs. State of U.P. and Others3, this Court finds substance in the grievance raised by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 27.07.2022, passed by respondent no.3, is hereby quashed. 9. The matter is remanded to respondent no.3, i.e. the Secretary, Basic Education Board, Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj, for reconsideration of the petitioner’s claim, afresh. While doing so, the authority concerned shall ignore any delay, and consider the matter sympathetically, strictly in accordance with law as well as keeping in mind the observations made in the judgments rendered in Krishna Kant (supra) and Ganesh Shankar Shukla (supra). A reasoned and speaking order shall be passed, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date 2 2022 SCC Online (SC) 1908 3 Writ-A No. 10029 of 2025, decided on 17.10.2025 4 Writ-A No.17926 of 2022 of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) October 17, 2025 Jitendra/- Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad