Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

SONUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

The petition was disposed of without merits, directing the petitioner to approach the Municipal Commissioner for relief.

Summary

Petitioner Sonu filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the authorities to appoint him as a sweeper under the U.P. Dying in Harness Rule, 1974 in place of his deceased brother, and to release the deceased brother's service benefits with interest. The respondents argued that the grievance should be addressed by the Municipal Commissioner and did not oppose a direction for the petitioner to file a fresh representation. The High Court found that keeping the petition pending would serve no useful purpose and disposed of it without addressing the merits. The Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Municipal Commissioner within three weeks, attaching a certified copy of the order, and instructed the Commissioner to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within four months. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and the matter was remitted to the appropriate administrative authority.

Issues considered

  • Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus directing a compassionate appointment under the U.P. Dying in Harness Rule, 1974.
  • Whether the Court can direct the release of service benefits and interest of a deceased municipal employee.

Legislation cited

  • U.P. Dying in Harness Rule, 1974

Subjects

  • compassionate appointment
  • mandamus
  • service benefits
  • municipal corporation
  • U.P. Dying in Harness Rule
  • writ petition
  • administrative law

Judgment

               HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                            WRIT - A No. - 15359 of 2026

Sonu
                                                                        .....Petitioner(s)
                                        Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                      .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                      :   Ashish Jaiswal
Counsel for Respondent(s)                      :   C.S.C., Shyam Mani Shukla

Court No. - 32
                          HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

       "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing
       the respondent authorities to offer appointment to the petitioner under the
       provisions of the U.P Dying in Harness Rule, 1974 on the post of Sweeper
       (Safai Karamchari) in place of his deceased brother.


       (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing
       the respondent authorities to release entire service benefits alongwith
       interest arising out of employment of deceased Dilip Kumar while
       working as Sweeper (Safai Karamchari) Nagar Nigam, Bareilly in favor
       of petitioner.


       (iii) Any such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
       and proper under the circumstances of the case."

3. Sri Shyam Mani Shukla, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. 2,
has contended that the grievance of the present petitioner regarding
compassionate appointment and payment of the retiral benefits of the
deceased employee can be more appropriately redressed by the Municipal
Commissioner (respondent no.2) and that he has no objection if a direction is
issued for expeditious disposal of the fresh representation, to be moved by
the present petitioner, within such stipulated period, as may be directed by
this Court.

4. In this conspectus, as above, no useful purpose would be served by
keeping this matter pending. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to
                                                                                           WRIA No. 15359 of 2026
                                                                   2


                                    finally dispose of the present writ petition, without expressing any opinion
                                    on the merits of the case, with liberty to the present petitioner to move a
                                    fresh representation before the Municipal Commissioner (respondent no.
                                    2) ventilating his grievances, as raised in this petition, within a period of
                                    three weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this order and a self
                                    attested copy of the instant writ petition, who, in turn, shall consider and
                                    decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably, within a
                                    period of four months from the date of production of the same, if there is no
                                    other legal impediment.

                                    5. With the aforesaid directions and observations, present writ petition
                                    stands disposed of.

                                    September 30, 2026
                                    vkg
                                                                                               (Dinesh Pathak,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
VINOD KUMAR GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.