Allahabad High Court

SMT. TARA DEVI AND ANOTHERversusTHE UP POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 19 April 2026
Bench: SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY

Holding

The Court held that, notwithstanding the delay, the petitioners are entitled to liberty to approach the respondent for a compassionate appointment, following the precedent set in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar.

Summary

Petitioner No.1, the wife of the late Nand Lal, and Petitioner No.2, his father who died in 2014, sought a compassionate appointment but filed the application after a considerable delay due to ongoing litigation for a succession certificate. The Court examined whether the delay barred the petitioners from obtaining relief. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar (2025 INSC 184), the Court held that a petitioner may still be granted liberty to approach the respondent despite the lapse of time. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without granting any specific relief. The judgment underscores that procedural delays do not automatically extinguish a claimant’s right to seek a compassionate appointment when justified by exceptional circumstances.

Issues considered

Whether the delay in filing the application for compassionate appointment bars the petitioners from obtaining relief.

Subjects

compassionate appointment
delay
succession certificate
writ petition
Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

                                             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                                                            WRIT - A No. - 5561 of 2026

                                    Smt. Tara Devi And Another
                                                                                              .....Petitioner(s)
                                                                       Versus

                                    The Up Power Corporation Limited And 3 Others
                                                                                            .....Respondent(s)

                                    Counsel for Petitioner(s)             :     Mohammad Abdul Haseen
                                    Counsel for Respondent(s)             :     Suyash Agarwal

                                    Court No. - 32
                                               HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

                                    1. Heard Sri Mohammad Abdul Haseen, learned counsel for the petitioner
                                    and Sri Suyash Agarwal has appeared on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 4.

                                    2. Petitioner no.1 is the wife of Late Nand Lal and petitioner no.2 is his
                                    father who died way back in the year 2014, therefore, there is a delay to
                                    agitate the claim for compassionate appointment, however, considering
                                    that due to some litigation for the purpose of succession certificate,
                                    petitioner was not able to submit the application within time, therefore,
                                    taking note of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of
                                    Canara Bank Vs.Ajithkumar, 2025 INSC 184, a liberty is still granted
                                    to the petitioner to approach concern respondent who will look into the
                                    matter.

                                    3. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.


                                                                                (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
                                    April 20, 2026
                                    SB




Digitally signed by :-
SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…