Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51136 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8747 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sanjesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shive Datta Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hari Narayan Singh Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the license was granted in favour of the grand father of the petitioner namely Badan Singh. He was the Fair Price Shop dealer of Gram Panchayat, Hindu Vaidpur, Block-Takha, District Etawah (now Gram Panchayat, Kurkha) who died on 15.06.2024. 2. It is argued that the petitioner became entitled for consideration of his case for his appointment on compassionate ground in terms of the Government Order dated 05.08.2019 and 28.02.2022. It is argued that Shri Badan Singh died leaving behind three sons namely Tale Singh, Subedar Singh and Ram Naresh Singh who do not possess the educational qualification for allotment of dealership of fair price shop. In this view of the matter, being the grand son of the deceased, the petitioner submit a representation before the Respondent No. 2 namely Up-Ziladhikari, Takha, District Etawah on 19.02.2025 for his appointment as Fair Price Shop dealer of his grand father. The aforesaid application was rejected by the Respondent No. 2 vide its order dated 01.03.2025, hence the present writ petition. 3. One of the ground which was mentioned by the Respondent No. 2, rejecting the aforesaid representation that the representation was submitted by the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground in place of his deceased grand father after 8 months though as per Government Order application should be submitted within 30 days. It is further stated that the petitioner being (ननतत) does not come under the definition of family member pursuant to the Government order. 4. It is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that Respondent No. 2 rejected the claim of the petitioner on an erroneous ground. It is further argued that grand son is also entitled for consideration of his case for appointment of Fair Price Shop pursuant to the law laid down by the Lucknow Bench of this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others (Misc. Single No. 13015 of 2020). 5. Insofar as the delay part is concerned, nothing has been stated in the entire writ petition. 6. On the other hand it is argued by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents that earlier the two sons of the deceased applied for their appointment on compassionate ground as Fair Price Shop dealer and immediately after the claim was rejected on the ground that the false high-school certificate was submitted by them, the petitioner submitted an application before the Respondent No. 2 to grant appointment of Fair Price Shop dealer in place of his deceased grand father. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. From perusal of the record, it is clear that application for allotment of Fair Price Shop of the petitioner was cancelled on two grounds namely application was filed after more than 8 months and the petitioner being the grand son of the license holder does not fall within the definition of family members. Insofar as the second ground is concerned, the same has already been dealt with by the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Misc. Single No. 13015 of 2020 (Sunil Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Food & Civil Supplies & others). 9. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that ground taken in order impugned that the petitioner being the grand son of the license holder is not entitled for the Fair Price Shop dealer is liable to be set aside. Insofar as the delay part is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that once the application is filed by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, respondent should consider the matter sympathetically. 10. In this view of the matter, impugned order dated 01.03.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 2-Up-Ziladhikari, Takha, District- Etawah is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. Respondent No. 2 is directed to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law after looking into consideration of the law laid down by the Lucknow Bench of this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Yadav (Supra). 11. It is made clear that the Respondent will not reject the claim of the petitioner only on the ground of laches. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Swati Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad