Vipin Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt.

Heard Mr. Puttan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4, Mr. P.K. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the records. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated

19.11.2024 passed by the respondent no. 3, whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected. The contentions put forth by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner died in year 2007, thereafter, he made claim in year 2008 for his appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules 1974(hereinafter, referred to as 'Rules 1974') which is admittedly applicable to the respondent-department. He further submitted that the matter was kept pending with the department and on either pretext they were calling for some record for verification though the record was already given respondent-department and whereafter, on 11.05.2015, a letter was written by the respondent no. 3 to the Principal Manager Personnel, State Road Transport Department, Lucknow, for consideration of the claim of the petitioner. He submitted that the letter itself reveals that 2 WRIA No. 1731 of 2025 the petitioner applied well within time vide application dated

27.08.2008 and it seems that there was certain lacunas for taking decision on appointment of the petitioner and as per the observations made in the letter dated 11.05.2015, the same could be completed at the subsequent stage, but that does not mean that the petitioner did not apply within period of five years as is condition precedent under the Rules 1974. Adding his arguments, he submits that the order of rejection dated

19.11.2024, has been passed, on the ground that the petitioner was not having the valid driving license at the time of applying for his appointment and that could not be completed, within period of five years from the date of death of the deceased employee, whereas, the fact remains that the petitioner never insisted upon his appointment on the post of Driver and the letter dated 11.05.2015 written by respondent no. 5 is also evident that he claimed for class IVth post, therefore, the reasons assigned in the order impugned are erroneous. He further submits that the petitioner applied within the period of five years for his appointment on compassionate ground in year 2008 and if certain formalities were not fulfilled as per the requirement under the provision, does not mean that there is any violation of terms & condition, as provided under the rules 1974. Concluding his arguments, he submits that the order impugned does not stand on its own legs, therefore, the same is liable to quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that though the petitioner has applied in year 2008, but he did not fulfilled the requirements within period of five years. He further submitted that further reasons which were assigned for non-consideration of appointment of the petitioner is that he could not place the valid driving license, within period of five years, therefore, he is not entitled for appointment under the rules 1974, thus, submission is that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Upon considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the father of the petitioner died on 28.05.2007, thereafter, the petitioner applied for his appointment under the rules 3 WRIA No. 1731 of 2025 1974 on 27.08.2008 by placing an application before the respondent- authorities. The fact remains that a letter subsequently was written by the Assistant Regional Manager, Personnel, Lucknow of the respondent- department the Principal Manager, Personnel, Lucknow consider the case of the petitioner under the given circumstances, as is mentioned in the letter dated 11.05.2015. When this Court examines the order impugned dated 19.11.2024, it reveals that the claim of the petitioner for his appointment has been rejected on two grounds, one is that he did not place the application well within time and further he has also failed to produce the valid driving license on the date of consideration of his appointment. It is apparent from the letter dated 11.05.2015 that the petitioner had applied for Class IVth post and there was no specific request for appointment on the post of Driver as the same is written by the Assistant Regional Manager, itself, therefore, the reason which is assigned, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment, does not exists. Further, it is an admitted fact between the parties that the petitioner applied for his appointment within span of five years, but the same could not be considered because certain other documents were required, which as per the contention of counsel for the respondent, was not given within time prescribed under rule 1974. This Court finds that the rule provide for claiming the appointment on compassionate grounds within period of five years and if there are certain other requirements in-pursuant thereof, that will not be computed for the terms & conditions as is provided under the rules 1974, thus, this Court also finds that the claim of the petitioner could not have been rejected on this ground. Consequently, the order impugned dated 19.11.2024 unsustainable, therefore, the same is hereby quashed. The respondent no. 3/Regional Manager, U.P. State Roadway Transport Corporation, Lucknow Region, Lucknow, is hereby directed to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh, within period of eight weeks in light of the observations made hereinabove. 4 WRIA No. 1731 of 2025 With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is hereby allowed. November 26, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard Mr. Puttan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4, Mr. P.K. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the records. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated

19.11.2024 passed by the respondent no. 3, whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected. The contentions put forth by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner died in year 2007, thereafter, he made claim in year 2008 for his appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules 1974(hereinafter, referred to as 'Rules 1974') which is admittedly applicable to the respondent-department. He further submitted that the matter was kept pending with the department and on either pretext they were calling for some record for verification though the record was already given respondent-department and whereafter, on 11.05.2015, a letter was written by the respondent no. 3 to the Principal Manager Personnel, State Road Transport Department, Lucknow, for consideration of the claim of the petitioner. He submitted that the letter itself reveals that 2 WRIA No. 1731 of 2025 the petitioner applied well within time vide application dated

27.08.2008 and it seems that there was certain lacunas for taking decision on appointment of the petitioner and as per the observations made in the letter dated 11.05.2015, the same could be completed at the subsequent stage, but that does not mean that the petitioner did not apply within period of five years as is condition precedent under the Rules 1974. Adding his arguments, he submits that the order of rejection dated

19.11.2024, has been passed, on the ground that the petitioner was not having the valid driving license at the time of applying for his appointment and that could not be completed, within period of five years from the date of death of the deceased employee, whereas, the fact remains that the petitioner never insisted upon his appointment on the post of Driver and the letter dated 11.05.2015 written by respondent no. 5 is also evident that he claimed for class IVth post, therefore, the reasons assigned in the order impugned are erroneous. He further submits that the petitioner applied within the period of five years for his appointment on compassionate ground in year 2008 and if certain formalities were not fulfilled as per the requirement under the provision, does not mean that there is any violation of terms & condition, as provided under the rules 1974. Concluding his arguments, he submits that the order impugned does not stand on its own legs, therefore, the same is liable to quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that though the petitioner has applied in year 2008, but he did not fulfilled the requirements within period of five years. He further submitted that further reasons which were assigned for non-consideration of appointment of the petitioner is that he could not place the valid driving license, within period of five years, therefore, he is not entitled for appointment under the rules 1974, thus, submission is that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Upon considering the submissions of counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the father of the petitioner died on 28.05.2007, thereafter, the petitioner applied for his appointment under the rules 3 WRIA No. 1731 of 2025 1974 on 27.08.2008 by placing an application before the respondent- authorities. The fact remains that a letter subsequently was written by the Assistant Regional Manager, Personnel, Lucknow of the respondent- department the Principal Manager, Personnel, Lucknow consider the case of the petitioner under the given circumstances, as is mentioned in the letter dated 11.05.2015. When this Court examines the order impugned dated 19.11.2024, it reveals that the claim of the petitioner for his appointment has been rejected on two grounds, one is that he did not place the application well within time and further he has also failed to produce the valid driving license on the date of consideration of his appointment. It is apparent from the letter dated 11.05.2015 that the petitioner had applied for Class IVth post and there was no specific request for appointment on the post of Driver as the same is written by the Assistant Regional Manager, itself, therefore, the reason which is assigned, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment, does not exists. Further, it is an admitted fact between the parties that the petitioner applied for his appointment within span of five years, but the same could not be considered because certain other documents were required, which as per the contention of counsel for the respondent, was not given within time prescribed under rule 1974. This Court finds that the rule provide for claiming the appointment on compassionate grounds within period of five years and if there are certain other requirements in-pursuant thereof, that will not be computed for the terms & conditions as is provided under the rules 1974, thus, this Court also finds that the claim of the petitioner could not have been rejected on this ground. Consequently, the order impugned dated 19.11.2024 unsustainable, therefore, the same is hereby quashed. The respondent no. 3/Regional Manager, U.P. State Roadway Transport Corporation, Lucknow Region, Lucknow, is hereby directed to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh, within period of eight weeks in light of the observations made hereinabove. 4 WRIA No. 1731 of 2025 With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is hereby allowed. November 26, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench