Allahabad High Court
SHIVAM YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- DINESH PATHAK
Holding
The court disposed of the petition without deciding the merits, directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Regional Manager, thereby refusing to grant mandamus.
Summary
Shivam Yadav filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation to consider his claim for a compassionate appointment arising from his father's death in service in 2003, contending that the widow had invoked the mechanism then and the claim remained undecided. The respondents argued that the grievance should be addressed by the Regional Manager and had no objection to an expeditious disposal of a fresh representation. The court held that keeping the petition pending would serve no useful purpose and declined to express any opinion on the merits of the mandamus relief. It directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Regional Manager within three weeks, attaching a certified copy of the order, and instructed the Regional Manager to decide the matter within three months, subject to any legal impediment. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed without a substantive ruling on the merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus directing UPSRTC to consider and decide the petitioner’s compassionate appointment claim.
- Whether the passage of time can be ignored as a ground for rejecting the claim when the widow had invoked the compassionate appointment mechanism immediately after the death.
- Whether the appropriate forum for redressing the grievance is the Regional Manager of UPSRTC.
Subjects
- compassionate appointment
- mandamus
- administrative law
- Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
- writ petition
- time bar
- regional manager
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 16052 of 2026
Shivam Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aishwarya Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sunil Kumar Misra
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs:
"A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS
commanding the respondents, i.e. the competent authority of the Uttar
Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, to consider and decide the
claim of the petitioner Shivam Yadav for compassionate appointment
against an appropriate post commensurate with his qualifications,
treating the same as emanating from and in continuation of the original
claim submitted by his mother immediately after the death in harness of
Late Shri Shankar Lal Yadav on 08.07.2003, and to determine, by a
reasoned and speaking order, the policy/rules legally applicable to such
claim, including the legal effect and applicability of the subsequent
Government Order dated 11.07.2003 and communication dated
24.09.2012, within a fixed period as may be stipulated by this Hon'ble
Court
B. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of
MANDAMUS commanding the concerned state respondents not to reject
the petitioner's claim solely on the ground of passage of time, without
taking into consideration that the widow of the deceased employee had
invoked the compassionate-appointment mechanism immediately
following the death of the employee, and that the original claim has never
been brought to a lawful conclusion by a reasoned order.
C. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of
MANDAMUS commanding the concerned state respondents that, upon
consideration and in the event the petitioner is found eligible under the
policy/rules lawfully applicable to the claim, the respondents may accord
WRIA No. 16052 of 2026
2
to the petitioner consequential consideration/appointment against a
suitable available post in accordance with law within such period as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit &proper.
D. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's
father died in harness on 08.07.2003 while serving as an Assistant Mechanic.
It is further submitted that despite repeated representations moved by the
petitioner and his mother seeking appointment on compassionate grounds,
the respondents have not yet taken any decision thereon.
4. Sri Sunil Kumar Misra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and
learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 have contended
that the grievance of the present petitioner, regarding non-appointment on
compassionate grounds, can be more appropriately redressed by the
Regional Manager (respondent no.3) and that they have 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.
5. In this conspectus, as above, no useful purpose would be served by
keeping this matter pending. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to
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 Regional Manager (respondent no.3)
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 three months from the date of production of the same, if there is
no other legal impediment.
6. With the aforesaid directions and observations, present writ petition
stands disposed of.
October 1, 2026
vkg
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VINOD KUMAR GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…