Allahabad High Court
SURESH THAKURversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The court held that the petitioner must first approach the appropriate authority for redress, and the writ petition was disposed without adjudicating the substantive appointment issue.
Summary
The petitioner, Suresh Thakur, sought a compassionate appointment after his father, a police barber who died in harness, was granted a post of Cook in the Police Department under the Dying in Harness Rules. The petitioner argued that he is a barber, lacks cooking skills, and a barber vacancy exists, so he should be appointed as a barber instead. The court noted that the grievance should first be examined by the appropriate authority before entertaining the writ. Consequently, the court directed the petitioner to file an application before respondent No. 4 within two weeks, to be decided sympathetically within twelve weeks. The court clarified that it had not examined the merits and disposed of the petition without deciding on the substantive issue.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as a barber instead of a cook under the compassionate appointment provisions of the Dying in Harness Rules
- Whether the High Court can entertain the writ petition without first allowing the administrative authority to consider the grievance
Subjects
- compassionate appointment
- dying in harness rules
- writ petition
- administrative remedy
- appointment
- police department
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 16162 of 2026
Suresh Thakur
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohd. Yaseen, Siddharth Khare
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that father of the petitioner was
Barber in U.P. Police, who died in harness. Thereafter, petitioner applied for
compassionate appointment under Dying in Harness Rules and has been appointed on
the post of Cook in the Police Department, by the order impugned passed by
respondent No. 5. It has been further submitted that petitioner is a Barber and he does
not know cooking and the post of barber is also vacant in the establishment, therefore
instead of being appointed as Cook he may be appointed as Barber.
2. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that grievance of the petitioner may be
examined by the authorities first before considering this writ petition.
3. In view of the same, petitioner is given liberty to move an appropriate application
before respondent No. 4 for redressal of his grievances within two weeks from today
and in case such an application is moved, same shall be considered and decided by
respondent No. 4 sympathetically, considering the case of the petitioner within a
period of twelve weeks thereafter.
4. It is made clear that this court has not examined the matter on merits and the order
shall be passed strictly in accordance with law.
5. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
October 1, 2026
Nitika Sri.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
NITIKA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…