Allahabad High Court

YASH SINGHversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS

Decided: 13 May 2026
Bench: PRAKASH PADIA

Holding

The court held that the State Government should be directed to condone the delay and consider the petitioner's compassionate appointment claim within two months.

Summary

The petitioner, Yash Singh, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order dated 03.08.2024 that rejected his claim for a compassionate appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974, on the ground of non‑compliance with the prescribed filing period. The petition highlighted that the delay—over 11 years—was due to the petitioner being a minor at the relevant time and that no other family member had previously applied under the Rules. The court noted that the State Government has, in numerous cases, exercised its discretion to condone such delays, citing Service Single No. 18175 of 2017 (Ravi Gautam v. State of U.P.) and the precedent of Shri Karam Veer Singh. Accordingly, the court directed the competent authority of the State Government to consider the petitioner's compassionate appointment claim, condone the delay, and decide within two months, without setting aside the original order. The writ petition was therefore disposed of with the said direction.

Issues considered

Whether the State Government can condone an 11‑year delay in filing an application under Section 5 of the Dying‑in‑Harness Rules, 1974.
Whether the order rejecting the petitioner's compassionate appointment claim should be quashed.
Whether the High Court can direct the competent authority to consider the petitioner's claim despite the existing order.

Legislation cited

Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 — s. 5

Subjects

compassionate appointment
Dying-in-Harness Rules
delay condonation
service law
writ petition

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 7249 of 2026

Yash Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

The State Of U.P. And 7 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arya Gautam, Atipriya Gautam,
Pratyush Srivastava, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 6
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

1. Heard Shri Vijay Gautam, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Arya
Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter-alia with the
prayer to quash the order dated 03.08.2024 passed by the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Mathura/ Respondent No.7. By the aforesaid
order, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was
rejected on the ground that the application is not submitted by the petitioner
during the period as prescribed under Section 5 of the Dying-in-Harness
Rules, 1974.

3. Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the judgment and order
dated 31.10.2017 passed in the Service Single No.2413 of 2013 (Arvind
Trivedi vs. State of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. & Ors.).
It is further argued that against the aforesaid order, Special Appeal
Defective No.246 of 2018 was filed by the State which was also dismissed
vide order dated 17.05.2018 which was also affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).22477 of 2018 vide judgment
and order dated 07.09.2018.

4. In this view of the matter, it is argued that directions should be given to
the respondent No.7 to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment.

5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
WRIA No. 7249 of 2026
2

6. From perusal of records it appears that admittedly the delay in the present
case is 11 years, 01 month and 07 days. It is also admitted that petitioner was
minor and immediately after becoming major, he applied for appointment
under Dying-in-Harness Rules. It is also reflected on record that no other
person from his family had ever applied for being appointed under 'Dying-
in-harness Rules'.

7. Admittedly, in large number of cases, State Government has condoned
the delay for appointment under 'Dying in Harness Rules'. This Court in
case of Service Single No. 18175 of 2017; Ravi Gautam Vs. State of
U.P. and Others condoned the delay after noting a similar exercise of
power in case of Shri Karam Veer Singh, where the State Government
has condoned the delay.

8. Hence, in the facts of the present case, it was a fit case where the State
Government ought to have exercised its discretion of condoning the
delay.

9. In this view of the matter and also in the interest of justice, without
interfering with the order passed by the Respondent No.7 which is under
challenge, the present writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to
the Competent Authority of the State Government to look into the matter,
specially for consideration of delay in respect of appointment of the
petitioner on compassionate ground, most expeditiously and positively
within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified
copy of this order, unless there is no legal impediment.

(Prakash Padia,J.)
May 14, 2026
Swati

Digitally signed by :-
SWATI PATHAK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…