HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 7249 of 2026 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J. 1. Heard Shri Vijay Gautam, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Arya Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter-alia with the prayer to quash the order dated 03.08.2024 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura/ Respondent No.7. By the aforesaid order, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that the application is not submitted by the petitioner during the period as prescribed under Section 5 of the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. 3. Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the judgment and order dated 31.10.2017 passed in the Service Single No.2413 of 2013 (Arvind Trivedi vs. State of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. & Ors.). It is further argued that against the aforesaid order, Special Appeal Defective No.246 of 2018 was filed by the State which was also dismissed vide order dated 17.05.2018 which was also affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).22477 of 2018 vide judgment and order dated 07.09.2018. 4. In this view of the matter, it is argued that directions should be given to the respondent No.7 to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arya Gautam, Atipriya Gautam, Pratyush Srivastava, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Yash Singh .....Petitioner(s) The State Of U.P. And 7 Others .....Respondent(s) 6. From perusal of records it appears that admittedly the delay in the present case is 11 years, 01 month and 07 days. It is also admitted that petitioner was minor and immediately after becoming major, he applied for appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules. It is also reflected on record that no other person from his family had ever applied for being appointed under 'Dying- in-harness Rules'. 7. Admittedly, in large number of cases, State Government has condoned the delay for appointment under 'Dying in Harness Rules'. This Court in case of Service Single No. 18175 of 2017; Ravi Gautam Vs. State of U.P. and Others condoned the delay after noting a similar exercise of power in case of Shri Karam Veer Singh, where the State Government has condoned the delay. 8. Hence, in the facts of the present case, it was a fit case where the State Government ought to have exercised its discretion of condoning the delay. 9. In this view of the matter and also in the interest of justice, without interfering with the order passed by the Respondent No.7 which is under challenge, the present writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the Competent Authority of the State Government to look into the matter, specially for consideration of delay in respect of appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground, most expeditiously and positively within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order, unless there is no legal impediment. May 14, 2026 Swati WRIA No. 7249 of 2026 2 (Prakash Padia,J.) Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad