Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4408 (ALL)

Kuldeep Kumar v. State Of U. P.

2026-01-08

Piyush Agrawal

body2026
JUDGMENT : PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard Sri Ayush Mishra holding brief of Sri S.K Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dilip Kumar Kesarwani, learned counsel for the state. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.04.2010 passed by Chief General Manager (Administration)/respondent no. 2 and further for a mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to decide the reminder dated 07.05.2010 of the petitioner and provide appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. 3. The facts as stated in the petition are that the petitioner's father, Late. Sri Naresh Chand, was appointed as driver in Bhaishali Depo of Meerut Region, Meerut of the corporation and died on 29.04.1997. At the time of death of the father, the petitioner was minor hence, the widow Smt. Chandra Devi (mother of the petitioner) filed a representation dated 25.07.1997 with the prayer to give appointment after the petitioner attained the age of maturity. The petitioner submitted a representation along with all required documents on 16.12.2004 but the respondents could not consider the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed Writ Petition A. No. 49560 of 2007 (Kuldeep Versus The General Manager), and the Hon'ble High Court, considering the claim of petitioner, disposed of the same vide order dated 21.07.2008 directing the respondents to decide the same. However, the same has not been considered by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Contempt Application (Civil) No. 1701 of 2010 which was disposed of vide order dated 09.04.2010 with the observation that opposite party no. 2 shall decide the representation of the applicant and intimate him of the order to the self-addressed within a week thereafter. In compliance of the order dated 09.04.2010, respondent no. 2 (Administration) rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 27.04.2010 with the finding that the petitioner's claim cannot be considered as per government order dated 11.07.2003, the claim of compensate appointment opportunity ended by virtue of U.P. Road Transport Corporation vide impugned order dated 27.04.2010. The petitioner met several times personally to respondent no. 2 and requested to consider his compassionate appointment but the same has neither been denied nor accepted and is making pendency till date. The petitioner met several times personally to respondent no. 2 and requested to consider his compassionate appointment but the same has neither been denied nor accepted and is making pendency till date. However, after issue of notification of compassionate appointment for the 1165 posts of conductor in respondents' department came to the knowledge of the petitioner, he submitted a representation before the authorities and also to the minister of U.P. State Road Transport. From perusal of the circular order dated 01.05.2025 and consequential order dated 05.05.2025, the petitioner feels aggrieved. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that similarly situated employees have been granted the benefits which have been denied to the petitioner. 5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the petition and submits that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold on the account of gross delay and laches alone without going into the merit of the case. He further submits that the impugned order dated 27.04.2010 rejecting the petitioner's claim was passed approximately 15 years ago and the present petition has been filed in the year 2025, showing an inordinate delay to which the petitioner has not provided any satisfactory explanation and chose to remain silent for over 15 years, which clearly demonstrates acquiescence and waiver of his rights. He further submits that entertaining such a belated petition would cause grave prejudice to the respondents as administrative arrangements have been settled over the past 15 years. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s mother filed a representation on 25.07.1997 seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner after he attained majority. Further, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 49560 of 2007 which was disposed of on 21.07.2008 directing the respondents to decide the representation after which the petitioner filed Contempt Application No. 1701 of 2010 which was disposed of on 09.04.2010 directing the respondents to decide the representation. However, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 27.04.2010 rejecting the petitioner's claim on the ground of time bar. However, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 27.04.2010 rejecting the petitioner's claim on the ground of time bar. Also, the petitioner admits that he came to know about the notification for 1165 posts and thereafter, filed the present petition. 8. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and equitable in nature. A person who invokes such jurisdiction is expected to approach the Court with reasonable promptitude. Delay and laches disentitle a litigant to discretionary relief. In the present case, the cause of action admittedly arose in the year 2010, whereas the petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2025 after an unexplained delay of about 15 years. The explanation offered by the petitioner is wholly unsatisfactory and does not inspire confidence. The plea of continuing cause of action is misconceived. Once an order has been passed and allowed to attain finality, the same cannot be reopened after decades under the garb of a continuing wrong. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “The Director of Town Panchayat v. M. Jayabal & S. Veeramani S.L.P. (C) Nos.8780-8783 of 2023” has exhaustively dealt with the issue of delay and laches in service matters. In paragraph 15 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “15. It is a settled principle of law that delay in filing of writ petition before the High Court is fatal for grant of relief to the party. This principle is more applicable in the cases of compassionate appointments. The idea behind compassionate appointment is to take care of immediate financial crisis in the family of the deceased employee. In such case, the delay would mean that the family could survive even after death of the employee, as they may be having another source of income. In such circumstances, the party approaching the court with a significant delay can be denied the relief.” 10. Further, this Court in “ Shiv Kumar Dubey v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 ADJ 312 (FB)” held as under:- “29) (i) A provision for compassionate appointment is an exception to the principle that there must be an equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Further, this Court in “ Shiv Kumar Dubey v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 ADJ 312 (FB)” held as under:- “29) (i) A provision for compassionate appointment is an exception to the principle that there must be an equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The exception to be constitutionally valid has to be carefully structured and implemented in order to confine compassionate appointment to only those situations which subserve the basic object and purpose which is sought to be achieved; (ii) There is no general or vested right to compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment can be claimed only where a scheme or rules provide for such appointment. Where such a provision is made in an administrative scheme or statutory rules, compassionate appointment must fall strictly within the scheme or, as the case may be, the rules; (iii) The object and purpose of providing compassionate appointment is to enable the dependent members of the family of a deceased employee to tide over the immediate financial crisis caused by the death of the bread-earner; (iv) In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the family; its liabilities, the terminal benefits received by the family; the age, dependency and marital status of its members, together with the income from any other sources of employment; (v) Where a long lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist and this would be a relevant circumstance which must weigh with the authorities in determining as to whether a case for the grant of compassionate appointment has been made out; ….. (viii) Provisions for the grant of compassionate appointment do not constitute a reservation of a post in favour of a member of the family of the deceased employee. Hence, there is no general right which can be asserted to the effect that a member of the family who was a minor at the time of death would be entitled to claim compassionate appointment upon attaining majority. Where the rules provide for a period of time within which an application has to be made, the operation of the rule is not suspended during the minority of a member of the family.” 11. Where the rules provide for a period of time within which an application has to be made, the operation of the rule is not suspended during the minority of a member of the family.” 11. Similarly, in Steel Authority of India Limited v. Gouri Devi by judgment dated 18.11.2021 passed in Civil Appeal No.6910/2021 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that delay in pursuing claim and approaching the court would militate against claim for compassionate appointment as very objective of providing immediate amelioration to family would stand extinguished. In the case of State of J & K and others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir reported in (2006) 5 SCC 766 , the Supreme Court has held that: - “11. We may also observe that when the Division Bench of the High Court was considering the case of the applicant holding that he had sought 'compassion', the Bench ought to have considered the larger issue as well and it is that such an appointment is an exception to the general rule. Normally, an employment in Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the 5 Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of sole bread earner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the set back. Once it is proved that in spite of death of bread earner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say 'goodbye' to normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.” 12. In view of the aforesaid discussions and the legal principles applying to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the firm view that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay and laches without going into the merits of the case. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed . No order as to costs.