Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3260 (UTT)

SONY YADAV v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSS/995/2026 · 2026-04-09

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:2575 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/995/2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dinesh Bankoti, Brief Holder for the State. 2. Petitioner’s father late Vijendra Singh Yadav alias Bijender Singh Yadav was serving as Driver in Health Department at Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, who died while in service on 29.10.2024. Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment; however, no decision has been taken on her request. 3. Learned State Counsel submits that two more applications have been filed seeking compassionate appointment by other persons, who also claim to be the legal representatives/dependants of late Vijendra Singh Yadav alias Bijender Singh Yadav. 4. Learned State Counsel submits that respondent No. 3 (Anil Yadav) claims to be son of late Vijendra Singh Yadav alias Bijender Singh Yadav, while respondent No. 4 Madhuri Devi claims to be wife of late Vijendra Singh Yadav alias Bijender Singh Yadav, who also has claimed compassionate appointment. 5. He submits that due to rival claims by 2026:UHC:2575 three different persons for compassionate appointment, no decision could be taken on petitioner’s application dated 02.04.2025. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was born from first wife. He submits that petitioner’s mother is the only legally wedded wife of late Vijendra Singh Yadav alias Bijender Singh Yadav, and as per his instructions, late Vijendra Singh Yadav alias Bijender Singh Yadav never remarried thereafter. 7. Be that as it may, since petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment is pending consideration before the competent authority, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the competent authority to take decision on the pending application of the petitioner as per law. 8. The rival claims, if any, made by other persons shall also be simultaneously considered by the competent authority and all the parties shall be given personal hearing before passing final order. 9. This Court hopes and expects that final decision in the matter shall be taken by the competent authority within four months. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 09.04.2026 Mahinder/ MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2026.04.16 10:25:30 +05'30' 2026:UHC:2575