Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136824-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 540 of 2025 Appellant :- Chanda Devi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashutosh Kumar Shukla,Puneet Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Kumar (Nagvanshi),C.S.C. Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. Order on Delay Condonation Application 1. The appeal is reported to be beyond time by 24 days. The cause shown for delay is found to be sufficient. Accordingly, delay is condoned. 2. The application for condonation of delay is allowed. 3. Office is directed to allot regular number to the instant appeal. Order on Memo of Appeal 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri A.K. Nagvanshi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondent No.1. 2. The present appeal is against the order dated 15.05.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.8196 of 2017 filed by the appellant, challenging the order of the District Basic Education Officer dated 27.12.2016, by which the claim of the appellant for compassionate appointment, after the death of her father, Sampurnanand Pandey, Assistant Teacher in Purva Madhyamic Vidyalaya Gajhadwa, Block Bankata, Tehsil Bhatparrani, District Deoria, was rejected. The rejection was on the ground that the appellant was a married daughter and therefore would not fall within the purview of the Government Order dated 04.09.2000, as amended by the Government Order dated 02.07.2004. 3. The learned Single Judge has accepted the contention on behalf of the appellant that married daughter could not be excluded from the benefit of compassionate appointment, in view of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ C No.60881/2015 decided on 04.12.2025. However, writ petition has ultimately been dismissed holding that the appellant could not bring on record any evidence to demonstrate that her husband was unemployed, and therefore, she was dependent upon her parents. The Single Judge has also held that almost 11 years have already expired since the date of death of father of the appellants, therefore, at this belated stage, the claim is not liable to be considered. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in paragraph No.4 of the writ petition, a specific assertion was made that the husband of the appellant was unemployed and she was dependent upon her father for her livelihood. It is submitted that the District Basic Education Officer, Deoria has not rejected the claim of the appellant on the said ground and therefore the learned Single Judge was not justified in examining the said issue. It is also submitted that once the claim was wrongly denied, then merely for the reason that decision of the writ petition, filed immediately after rejection of the claim remained pending and could be disposed of recently, be made a ground to non-suit the appellant. 5. We find considerable force in the submission that the District Basic Education Officer had not rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that her husband was employed and therefore, in our opinion, even if the said factor was relevant, the proper course would have been to remit the matter back to the District Basic Education Officer for consideration of the same. 6. As rightly urged, there was a specific pleading in paragraph No.4 of the writ petition that the husband of the appellant was unemployed and she was dependent for her livelihood on her father. A person cannot be expected to lead negative evidence to prove that husband was unemployed. There was no plea on behalf of the State that the appellant was not dependent for her livelihood upon her father on account of her husband being employed anywhere. 7. We also find force in the submission that once the impugned order was found illegal and appellant had taken due recourse to law without delay, the delay in disposal of the writ petition could not be made a ground to deny consideration of her claim. 8. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge is hereby set- aside and the matter is remitted to the District Basic Education Officer for considering the claim of the appellant afresh, after examining all relevant issues. It is clarified that petitioner/appellant would not be non-suited on the ground that she is a married daughter, as the said ground, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench in Smt. Vimla Srivastava (supra). The decision in this regard shall be taken by the District Basic Education Officer within eight weeks from the date of communication of the instant order. 9. The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Ashish/- (R.M.N.Mishra, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHISH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad