Allahabad High Court
KAIF KHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The claim for compassionate appointment shall be considered on merit if the petitioner appears before the respondent on 21 May 2026; otherwise, no fresh consideration is required.
Summary
The petitioner, Kaif Khan, filed a writ petition seeking a compassionate appointment after his father's death. He allegedly appeared on the date fixed before the Registrar, but no evidence was produced, leading the respondents to claim he did not appear and was therefore not desirous of appointment. The court examined whether the claim should be decided on merit despite the alleged non‑appearance. It held that the claim may be considered if the petitioner appears before the concerned authority on 21 May 2026, with the earlier application as the basis, but if he fails to appear, no fresh consideration is required. Accordingly, the court disposed of the writ petition with these directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment can be entertained despite alleged non‑appearance before the Registrar.
- Whether the respondent authority is obligated to decide the claim on merit irrespective of procedural default.
- Whether a fresh consideration of the claim is required if the petitioner fails to appear on the stipulated date.
Subjects
- compassionate appointment
- writ petition
- non‑appearance
- procedural direction
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 7488 of 2026
Kaif Khan
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arvind Srivastava, Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Satyam Singh
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri
Santosh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents and Ms.
Akanksha Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Satyam Singh,
Advocate for Respondent-3.
2. Petitioner has not appeared on the date fixed before Registrar,
therefore, his claim for compassionate appointment was not considered on
merit. However, according to learned counsel for petitioner, he has
appeared on date fixed though there is no averment or documentary
evidence to prove it.
3. Learned counsel for respondents submits that since petitioner has not
appeared, therefore, his claim was not considered on ground that he was
not desirous for appointment.
4. After hearing both parties, Court finds that even in case petitioner was
not appeared on date fixed, concerned respondent ought to have decided
his claim for compassionate appointment on merit though in impugned
order a liberty is granted that claim of petitioner can still be considered
with a caveat that application will be considered only if filed within a
stipulated time.
WRIA No. 7488 of 2026
2
5. Petitioner’s father died in harness on 27.04.2021 and application was
filed within a short time. The Court finds that since impugned order does
not assign any reason and consideration on a fresh application would be
adverse to petitioner, therefore, it is interfered only to the extent that in
case petitioner appears before concerned respondent on 21st May, 2026,
his claim be considered in accordance with law on basis of earlier
application so filed. However, it is made clear that in case petitioner fails
to appear on aforesaid date, no fresh consideration is required.
6. With aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
May 18, 2026
AK
Digitally signed by :-
AWADESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…