KM. BEENUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 533 of 2025

Km. Beenu
                                                               .....Appellant(s)
                                    Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)                       :    Amit Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)                      :    C.S.C., Hare Ram

Court No. - 3
                HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
                HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.

Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 01 of 2025

1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Kesarwani, learned Advocate holding brief of
Sri Amit Pandey, learned counsel for the original petitioner/appellant,
learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Hare Ram,
learned counsel for respondent-Basic Siksha Adhikari.

2. Present appeal has been filed with a delay of 58 days.

3. Cause shown is sufficient. Delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.
Delay condonation application is allowed.

Order on Appeal

4. The present intra-court appeal has arisen against the judgment and order
dated 25.04.2025 passed by the learned single judge in Kumari Beenu Vs.
State of U.P. and 4 Others, 2025:AHC:63946.

5. By that order, the learned single judge has dismissed the writ petition filed
by the petitioner, seeking compassionate appointment, primarily for the
reason of delay/laches.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
record, we are not inclined to grant any indulgence in the matter. Primarily,
discretionary relief claimed has been declined for reason of delay. To that
extent, no error on principle may be cited. The fact that certain other persons
                                                           SPLAD No. 533 of 2025
                                 2


may have been granted relief, may also not cause any difference. In matters
of grant of compassionate appointment, individual facts may lead to exercise
of discretion, both by the Administrative Authorities and also by this Court
in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, an individual consideration - to the particular facts.

7. Here, it is undisputed that the original petitioner's mother died-in-harness
on 17.05.1996. At that time, the original petitioner described herself to be a
Class-Xth student. Thus, she was a minor. Within 5 years from the date of
occurrence of death, the original petitioner filed her application
seeking compassionate appointment, in the year 2000. To that extent, no
delay may be attributed to the original petitioner.

8. However, the conduct of the original petitioner thereafter, is suspect. On
her own disclosure, the original petitioner would have attained the age of
majority before the year 2000, when she first filed her application
seeking compassionate appointment. Yet, she did not approach the Court till
as late as 2008 i.e. 12 years, after the occurrence of death. Too much time
was lost at that stage itself for the claim of compassionate appointment to be
allowed, on merits, at that belated stage. Merely, because the writ Court,
issued a direction at that stage, on 06.08.2008 in Writ A No. 23892 of 2008,
requiring the respondent authorities to decide the claim of the petitioner, it
may not have any bearing on the consideration to be made on merits,
considering the inordinate delay. To that extent, no benefit may be caused to
the petitioner merely because a direction was issued that her application for
grant of compassionate appointment be considered.

9. Seen in that light, the rejection order dated 21.06.2014 passed by the State
Government may not merit any interference.

10. Also, Sri Hare Ram would point out that on account of subsequent
events intervening, the original petitioner got married and is living with her
husband. Responding to the above, learned counsel for the original
petitioner states that the original petitioner is continuing to face financial
distress, owing to some other subsequent circumstances. Suffice to note
those are subsequent events that have no bearing to the consideration to
be offered on the application of the petitioner seeking compassionate
                                                                                          SPLAD No. 533 of 2025
                                                                  3


                                    appointment arising from the death of her mother, that took place 30 years
                                    ago.

                                    11. Plainly, though the claim for grant of compassionate appointment may
                                    have been required to be considered, to the extent that claim has been
                                    rejected on merits, in the above cited circumstances of inordinate delay
                                    caused by the petitioner, we find no good ground to offer interference, in
                                    these proceedings. No error on principle exists in order of learned single
                                    judge. Appeal lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
                                    costs.



                                                    (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
                                    May 7, 2026
                                    #Vikram/-




Digitally signed by :-
VIKRAM GUPTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad