# Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 4 ILRA 555
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2018-02-27
- **Case number:** Court i.e. Writ A No. 17235 of 2018
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sunita Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mukesh-kumar-v-union-of-india-ors-45017
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Law
-
Compassionate
appointment-
Application
not
moved
within a reasonable time - nor offered any
explanation for delay - further scheme for
such
appointment
cannot
be
given
retrospective effect -scheme to be strictly
constructed-impugned order do not suffer
from any infirmity.

Held -any delay on the part of the dependants
of the deceased employee has to be explained
in order to enable the public authority to
examine whether the family of the deceased
556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
would not be able to meet the crisis unless a
job is offered to the eligible member of the
family. (Para 18)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

4 All. Jay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
555
their production before the authority
concerned and furnishing of all papers nor
any counter affidavit has been filed
explaining any legal impediment in such
registration.

7. Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 provides for the registration of
the motor vehicles and Section 45 thereof
gives power to the Registering Officer to
refuse registration. The Registration can
be refused only on the limited grounds
mentioned therein if the Registering
Officer has reason to believe that the
vehicle is a stolen one or is mechanically
defective or fails to comply with the
requirements of the Act or the Rules made
therein, or if the applicant fails to furnish
necessary particulars. No other ground for
refusal has been prescribed therein. The
traffic problem of the area, city or town is
not a ground on which registration of any
motor vehicle can be refused.

8. In one of the cases before this
Court i.e. Writ A No. 17235 of 2018
(Mohd Aman and 3 others Vs. State of
U.P. and 5 others), a Division Bench of
this Court after considering the pleadings
of the parties, deemed it appropriate to
dispose off a similar writ petition refusing
registration of e-rickshaws with the
direction to the Transport Authorities to
register the e-rickshaws in accordance
with law provided the owners thereof
furnish all necessary papers and present
their e-rickshaws before the competent
authority.

9. In view of the above, we have no
option but to make the above interim
direction to be absolute more particularly
for the reason that the Resolution
impugned is patently without jurisdiction
as there is no provision under the Act
which
authorizes
the
respondent
authorities to refuse registration or to keep
the registration in abeyance on account of
traffic conditions in the city.

10. Accordingly, the Resolution
dated
27.02.2018
is
quashed
and
mandamus is issued to the respondents to
register the e-rickshaws of the petitioners
on the fulfilment of the necessary
formalities.

11. The writ petition stands allowed
accordingly.
----------
(2019)12 ILR A555

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.

Writ A No. 15941 of 2019

Mukesh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arvind Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Aditya Kumar Singh

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
appointment-
Application
not
moved
within a reasonable time - nor offered any
explanation for delay - further scheme for
such
appointment
cannot
be
given
retrospective effect -scheme to be strictly
constructed-impugned order do not suffer
from any infirmity.

Held -any delay on the part of the dependants
of the deceased employee has to be explained
in order to enable the public authority to
examine whether the family of the deceased
556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
would not be able to meet the crisis unless a
job is offered to the eligible member of the
family. (Para 18)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited: -

1. State Bank of India and others vs Sheo
Shankar Tewari, (2019) 5 SCC 600

2. Canara Bank and another vs M. Mahesh,
(2015) 7 SCC 412

3.SBI vs Raj Kumar, (2010) 11 SCC 661

4. MGB Gramin Bank vs Chakrawarti Singh,
(2014) 13 SCC 583

5. SBI vs Jash pal Kaur, (2007) 9 SCC 571

6. Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State of Haryana,
(1994) 4 SCC 138

7. State of Jharkhand and others vs Shiv
Karampal Sahu , (2009) 11 SCC 453

8. Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs Union of India
and others, (2011) 4 SCC 209

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita
Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

2. The challenge in the present
petition is to order of rejection of claim of
the petitioner for grant of compassionate
appointment. The reason given therein is
that
the
scheme
of
compassionate
appointment was not available in the
Bank on the date of death of the
employee, i.e. father of the petitioner.

3. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the petitioner's father
who was working as Accounts Officer
with the respondent Bank had died on
12.5.2018. As the salary of the petitioner's
father was the only source of income of
the family, the petitioner's mother moved
an application dated 8.4.2019 for grant of
compassionate
appointment
to
the
petitioner herein with the consent of all
other
dependants
of
the
deceased
employee. The prayer of the petitioner's
mother had wrongly been rejected by the
order impugned though the scheme of
compassionate appointment was available
in the Bank, w.e.f 15.3.2019.

4. It is contended that on demand of
the employees of the Public Sector Banks,
the Government of India had approved the
scheme of compassionate appointment
and a communication dated 7.8.2014 was
sent to all Public Sector Banks for
adoption of the said scheme w.ef.
5.8.2014. It was further communicated by
the letter dated 5.12.2014 issued by the
Under Secretary to the Government of
India, Ministry of Finance that the Banks
can have both the options, i.e. to offer
compassionate appointment or payment of
lump sum ex-gratia amount. However, for
providing any of the above two benefits, it
is necessary that other conditions of
compassionate appointment are met. In
the light of the said communication, the
Scheme of compassionate appointment
became operative in all Public Sector
Banks.

5. Thereafter, by the letter dated
3.11.2014,
the
National
Bank
for
Agricultural
Rural
Development
(NABARD) wrote to the Government of
India
to
extend
the
scheme
of
compassionate appointment approved by
it on 5.8.2014 to the Regional Rural
Banks, they being Public Sector Banks
established under the Regional Rural
Banks Act, amended by Act No. 140 of
4 All. Mukesh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
557
2015. The Government of India having
realised discrimination to the employees
of Regional Rural Banks extended the
Scheme of compassionate appointment,
approved by it for Public Sector Banks, to
the Regional Rural Bank by means of the
communication dated 31.12.2018. The
Board of respondent Bank, however, had
adopted the scheme of compassionate
appointment, w.e.f 15.3.2019, though it
had been communicated that the scheme
was approved by the Government of India
on 7.8.2014 and has been made applicable
w.e.f 5.8.2014.

6. With the above facts, it is
vehemently contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that adoption of
scheme of compassionate appointment by
the Board of the Regional Rural Banks
was only a ministerial exercise and it was
not open for the Board to make any
distinction in the matter of applicability of
the
scheme
of
compassionate
appointment. The scheme was to be
applied w.e.f 5.8.2014 as had been done
for the employees of Public Sector Banks.
There
was
no
justification
for
discrimination between two sets of
employees and the artificial classification
made by the Board of the Bank is wholly
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

7. In the alternative, it is contended
that once the respondent Board had
acknowledged
that
the
scheme
of
compassionate appointment was adopted
on 15.3.2019, the application moved by
the petitioner's mother on 8.4.2019, i.e.
after implementation of the scheme could
not have been rejected on the ground that
the said scheme was not available on the
date of death of the petitioner's father. It is
contended that the date of death of an
employee can have no relation with the
claim of compassionate appointment as
the dependant of a deceased employee has
no vested right to seek compassionate
appointment. In fact no cause of action
accrued to the petitioner on the date of
death
of
the
employee
to
seek
compassionate appointment as only right
was to seek consideration of his claim
which had accrued either on the date of
the application or the date of the
consideration of the same. In the instant
case, on both dates, i.e. when the claim
for compassionate appointment was filed
and
considered,
the
scheme
of
compassionate appointment was in vogue.
The relevant date being the date of
consideration of the application and not
the date of death of the employee, the
rejection order cannot be sustained.

8. Further, the application seeking
compassionate appointment having been
moved within a period of five years from
the death of the employee, as per Clause-8
of the scheme itself, the time limit for
considering application had not expired.
The application having been given within
the limitation period prescribed in the
scheme could not have been rejected.

9. Furthermore, the Clause-8 of the
scheme provides the procedure
for
disposal of application for compassionate
appointment.
Being
procedural
subordinate legislation, it has to be given
retrospective effect. Moreover, in view of
the fact that the scheme of compassionate
appointment is beneficial legislation, the
bank can not discriminate by making an
artificial classification in implementation
of
the
scheme
of
compassionate
appointment by relating it to the date of
death of the employee. There is no
justification for the said classification
558 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
made by the Bank, as it cannot insist that
compassionate appointment would be
extended to dependants of only those
employees
who
had
died
after
implementation
of the scheme,
i.e.
15.3.2019.

10. It is submitted that such a
situation came before the Apex Court and
in the case of State Bank of India and
others vs Sheo Shankar Tewari noticing
the conflict in the judgments of the Apex
Court in Canara Bank and another vs M.
Mahesh, SBI vs Raj Kumar, MGB
Gramin Bank vs Chakrawarti Singh and
SBI vs Jash pal Kaur , the issue has been
referred to the Larger Bench by the order
dated 8.2.2019. It is contended that the
appellate bank therein itself had taken a
stand that there was no vested right with
the dependants of the deceased to seek
consideration under the former scheme
and the governing scheme would be one
which
was
applicable
when
the
application came up for consideration. On
the other hand, the contention of the
applicant therein was that the governing
scheme would be the former scheme ie;
the scheme available on the date of the
application and scrapping of the former
scheme for compassionate appointment
after the claim was raised was of no
effect.

11.

Learned
Senior
counsel
appearing for the respondent bank in
rebuttal vehemently submits that the
compassionate
appointment
is
an
exception
to
the
general
rule
of
appointments in the public services which
should be made strictly from the open
market by inviting applications on merit
of all eligible applicants. As has been held
by the Apex Court in Umesh Kumar
Nagpal vs State of Haryana, the scheme
of compassionate appointment has to be
given strict construction. It cannot be
treated as a benevolent or beneficial
legislation like any other scheme. Similar
issue came up before the Apex Court in
State of Jharkhand and others vs Shiv
Karampal Sahu wherein it is held that the
benevolent circular or scheme cannot be
extended to a case which was not
contemplated by the scheme itself. Liberal
construction cannot be given in the matter
of implementation of the beneficial
legislation which has a scheme of its own
and where there is no vagueness or doubt
therein.

12.

Placing
the
scheme
of
compassionate appointment applied in the
Regional Rural Banks w.e.f 15.3.2019, it
is contended that the Clause-1 regarding
'Coverage' of the Scheme shows that it
cannot be given retrospective effect.
Clause-1.1(a) provides that compassionate
appointment
can
be
given
to
the
dependant family member of a permanent
employee of bank who dies while in
service. Meaning thereby, the scheme
covers only those claims for which cause
of action arose after implementation of
the scheme w.e.f 15.3.2019, i.e. in case of
death of the employee after the said date.
In the instant case, the application having
been made after approximately one year
from the date of death of the employee ie
8.4.2019 and as there was no pending
claim on the date of implementation of
the scheme, Clause-8 is not attracted at
all.

13. The judgments in MGB Gramin
Bank (supra), Canara Bank (supra)
have been placed before the Court to
submit that the ratio of the said decisions
do not apply in the present case for the
reason that both the above judgments
4 All. Mukesh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
559
were delivered in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of those cases, where
changes in the scheme were brought
during pendency of the application for
compassionate appointment.

14. The conflict noted in the case of
State Bank of India and others vs Sheo
Shankar Tewari reported in (2019) 5
SCC 600 by the Apex court therefore, has
no relevance in the present case.

15. In the light of the above
submissions, it would be apt to first
consider the well settled principles of law
pertaining to grant of compassionate
appointment. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs
(supra) it was emphasized by the Apex
Court that a compassionate appointment
cannot be claimed as a matter of course as
the object is not to give appointment to a
member of the family rather the whole
object
of
granting
compassionate
appointment is to enable the family to
meet immediate financial crisis.

16. The source of livelihood provided
by
compassionate
appointment
is
an
exception in favour of the dependants of an
employee dying in harness. Mere death of
employee in harness does not entitle his
family to such source of livelihood. The
exception carved out to the general rules of
appointments in public services is to be
followed strictly
in
every
case. The
Government or the public authority concerned
has to examine the financial condition of the
family of the deceased, it is only if it satisfied,
that but for provision of employment, the
family will not be able to meet the crisis that
the job is to be offered to the eligible member
of the family (emphasis added).

17. In Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs
Union of India and others it was held
that while considering a claim for
employment on compassionate ground,
the following factors have to be borne in
mind:-

"20.Thus, while considering a
claim for employment on compassionate
ground, the following factors have to be
borne in mind:

(i) Compassionate employment
cannot be made in the absence of rules or
regulations issued by the Government or
a public authority. The request is to be
considered strictly in accordance with the
governing scheme, and no discretion as
such is left with any authority to make
compassionate appointment dehors the
scheme.

(ii)
An
application
for
compassionate
employment
must
be
preferred without undue delay and has to
be considered within a reasonable period
of time.

(iii)
An
appointment
on
compassionate ground is to meet the
sudden crisis occurring in the family on
account
of
the
death
or
medical
invalidation of the bread winner while in
service.
Therefore,
compassionate
employment cannot be granted as a
matter of course by way of largesse
irrespective of the financial condition of
the deceased/incapacitated employee's
family at the time of his death or
incapacity, as the case may be.

(iv) Compassionate employment
is permissible only to one of the
dependants of the deceased/incapacitated
employee, viz. parents, spouse, son or
daughter and not to all relatives, and such
appointments should be only to the lowest
category that is Class III and IV posts."

18. Keeping in mind the object of
the compassionate appointment in the
560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
light of the above principles, it is evident
that an application for compassionate
appointment has to be preferred without
any delay and has to be considered within
a reasonable period of time. Any delay on
the part of the dependants of the deceased
employee has to be explained in order to
enable the public authority to examine
whether the family of the deceased would
not be able to meet the crisis unless a job
is offered to the eligible member of the
family. Noteworthy is the fact that in the
instant case, no explanation has been
offered by the petitioner for moving
application after a period of one year from
the date of death of the employee when
admittedly he was eligible being major
and
having
completed
his
studies
(graduation) in the year 2015.

19. Further, it is settled that the
scheme for grant of compassionate
appointment must be considered in terms
of the stipulations made in the Circular
letters containing the policy decisions.
Such a scheme cannot be given liberal
construction. In the case of the State of
Jharkhand and others (supra), the Apex
Court has stated the following :-

"11. The scheme for grant of
monetory compensation to the dependents
of the deceased or injured who are
affected
in
any
kind
of
terrorist/virulent/communal attack must
be considered in terms of the stipulations
made in the circular letters containing
policy
decisions.
Appointment
on
compassionate ground, it is trite, must be
made keeping in view the provisions
contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. Such schemes
cannot be given an expansive meaning as
the constitutional scheme envisages that
all persons who are entitled to be
considered for appointment would be
eligible for being considered therefor.
Any policy decision for appointment on
compassionate ground must, therefore,
receive a strict construction."

13. A circular letter providing
for appointment on compassionate ground
in case of death of a government servant
cannot be extended in case of the
dependents of the deceased who was not a
government servant. A public employment
must be offered to a person who is entitled
therefor. All recruitments subject to just
exceptions must be made in terms of the
rules framed under the proviso appended
to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
A circular letter issued by the State
cannot
be
issued
de
hors
the
constitutional scheme of making offer of
public
appointment.
[See
Official
Liquidator vs. Dayanand & ors. [(2008)
10 SCC 1 para 52]; State of Bihar vs.
Upendra Narayan Singh & Ors. [(2009) 4
SCALE 282 para 19]; and Man Singh v.
Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri &
Ors. [2009 (4) SCC 645].

14. Moreover, a benevolent
circular, it is well known, cannot be
extended to a case which was not
contemplated by the circular itself.

In
Regional
Director,
Employees' State Insurance Corporation,
Trichur vs. Ramanuja Match Industries
[AIR 1985 SC 278], this Court held:

"...We
do
not
doubt
that
beneficial legislations should have liberal
construction with a view to implementing
the legislative intent but where such
beneficial legislation has a scheme of its
own there is no warrant for the Court to
travel beyond the scheme and extend the
scope of the statute on the pretext of
extending the statutory benefit to those
who are not covered by the scheme."
4 All. Mukesh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
561

15.In Deepal Girishbhai Soni &
ors. vs. United India Insurance Co.

Ltd., Baroda [(2004) 5 SCC
385], it was opined :

"53. Although the Act is a
beneficial one and, thus, deserves liberal
construction with a view to implementing
the legislative intent but it is trite that
where such beneficial legislation has a
scheme of its own and there is no
vagueness or doubt therein, the court
would not travel beyond the same and
extend the scope of the statute on the
pretext of extending the statutory benefit
to those who are not covered thereby."

20. It has been further held therein
that in the matter of construction and
application of subordinate legislation, the
rule of incorporation by reference should
not be applied unless a clear case is made
out therefor. Ordinarily a subordinate
legislation should not be construed to be
retrospective in operation. The circular
letter providing scheme of compassionate
appointment should be given prospective
effect. It was further held in para-'16' and
'17' as under:-

"16. Furthermore, in the matter
of
construction
or
application
of
subordinate
legislation
the
rule
of
incorporation by reference should not be
applied unless a clear case is made out
therefor.
The
circular
letter
dated
21.9.1987 is an independent one. It
operates in its own field. There is no
scope of reading both the circulars
together. Even if they could be read, the
general circulars in regard to the
appointment on compassionate ground
which were again applicable to the cases
of dependents of the deceased employees
either for the purpose of consideration of
the
period
during
which
such
appointments were to be made or
otherwise could not have been taken into
consideration for the purpose of grant of
benefit to which he was not otherwise
entitled to.

In Management of Indian Bank
& Anr. vs. Ramachandran & ors. [JT
2007 (13) SC 436], it has been held:

 "It is now a trite law that for
the purpose of construing a statute,
reference to another statute is not
permissible and, thus, Regulation 21 of
the
Civil
Services
Pension
Rules
contemplates a different situation, the
same will have no application in the
instant case. The High Court, therefore,
committed an error in relying on the said
provision."

17. Ordinarily, a subordinate
legislation should not be construed to be
retrospective in operation. The circular
letter dated 7.5.2003 was given a
prospective effect. The father of the
respondent died on 19.5.2000. There is
nothing to show that even circular dated
9.8.2000 had been given retrospective
effect. In any view of the matter, as the
State of Jharkhand in the circular letter
dated 7.5.2003 adopted the earlier
circular letters issued by the State of
Bihar only in respect of cases where
death had occurred after 15.10.2000, i.e.,
the date from which the State of Jharkhad
came into being, the High Court, in our
opinion, committed a serious error in
giving
retrospective
effect
thereto
indirectly which it could not do directly.

Reasons assigned by the High
Court, for the reasons aforementioned,
are unacceptable."

21. In the case of MGB Gramin
Bank (supra), considering the object for
compassionate appointment as laid down
562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra) it was
held in para-'8' as under:-

"8. An ''ameliorating relief' should
not be taken as opening an alternative mode of
recruitment
to
public
employment.
Furthermore, an application made at a belated
stage cannot be entertained for the reason that
by lapse of time, the purpose of making such
appointment stands evaporated."

22. Furthermore, it was held therein
that as the appointment on compassionate
ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right
nor
an
applicant
becomes
entitled
automatically for appointment with the death
of the employee in harness, a dependant of
the deceased cannot claim appointment as a
vested right, as a right independent of any
contingency and which cannot be taken away
without consent of the person concerned.
The
entitlement
for
appointment
on
compassionate grounds depends on various
other circumstances such as eligibility and
financial condition of the family etc., and the
application has to be considered in
accordance with the scheme. Since the
scheme does not create any vested right, a
candidate cannot claim that his case is to be
considered under the scheme existing on the
date when the cause of action has arisen, i.e.
the date of death of the incumbent on the
post. It was, thus, held that as the new
scheme came into force within a short period
from the date of receiving of the application,
the candidate cannot claim consideration
under the old scheme. The scheme as
prevailing on the date of consideration of the
application would apply and the application
has to be considered strictly in accordance
with the new scheme.

23. Whereas in Canara Bank
(supra), considering the judgment in SBI
vs Jashpal (supra), it was held that the
claim of compassionate appointment
which was materialized under the old
scheme cannot be decided on the basis of
the scheme that was promulgated much
after the dispute in the said case. It was
found
that
the
application
for
compassionate appointment "dying in
harness" scheme
was
moved
when
scheme for compassionate appointment
was in force. The new scheme providing
for ex gratia payment (by scrapping of
scheme of dying-in-harness appointment)
came much after the filing of the
application.
In
the
said
fact
and
circumstances of that case, it was held
that the cause of action to be considered
for compassionate appointment arose
when the old scheme was in force and the
new scheme being an administrative order
cannot be given retrospective effect so as
to take away right of consideration
accrued to the applicant under the old
scheme. The claim was directed to be
considered under the old scheme with the
observations in relevant paragraph-'18'
and Canara Bank and another (supra) as
under:-

"18. It is also pertinent to note
that 2005 Scheme providing only for exgratia payment in lieu of compassionate
appointment stands superseded by the
Scheme of 2014 which has revived the
scheme providing for compassionate
appointment. As on date, now the scheme
in force is to provide compassionate
appointment. Under these circumstances,
the appellant- bank is not justified in
contending that the application for
compassionate
appointment
of
the
respondent cannot be considered in view
of passage of time."

24. Having carefully gone through
the above decisions, it is more than
4 All. Mayank Babu Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
563
apparent that both the said judgments
were rendered in the circumstance where
the
applications
for
compassionate
appointment
were
moved
within
a
reasonable time from the date of death of
the incumbent on the post.

25. However, in the instant case the
petitioner did not move application for
compassionate appointment
within a
reasonable time and has not offered any
explanation for moving application after
one year from the date of cause of action
which arose with the death of his father.

26. It is not a case where the
application was moved under the old
scheme but remained pending and new
scheme came in. In fact, there was no
occasion for the Bank to consider the
claim of family of the deceased employee
to grant financial assistance to overcome
the crisis immediately on the death of the
employee. The law laid down by the Apex
Court in MGB Gramin bank (supra) has
no application in the fact situation of the
present case. The ratio in Canara Bank
and another (supra) cannot be applied.
The question of reference in State Bank of
India
(supra)
does
not
arise
for
consideration in the instant case.

27. Moreover, the scheme of
compassionate appointment implemented,
w.e.f 15.3.2019 can not be given
retrospective effect. The said scheme can
be
applied
only
in
the
following
contingencies, i.e:-

(i)where the incumbent on the
post dies in harness after implementation
of the scheme w.e.f 15.3.2019.

(ii)the
application
seeking
financial assistance (ex-gratia payment)
under the old scheme was moved and
remained pending for the inaction or non
consideration
on
the
part
of
the
respondent bank.

(iii)where the application was
moved under the old scheme (for ex gratia
payment) and within a short period from
the date of receiving of the application,
new
scheme
for
compassionate
appointment came into force.

28. Further, the time limit provided
under Clause-8 of the current scheme for
considering application within a period of
five years has to be reckoned from the
date of death of the employee in harness
and cannot come to rescue of the
petitioner who himself moved application
after a lapse of one year from the date of
accrual of the cause of action or death of
the employee without any explanation for
the delay.

29. In view of the above, the
decision of the Bank in refusing to
consider the claim for compassionate
appointment made by the petitioner's
mother, cannot be said to suffer from any
infirmity.

30. The writ petition is found devoid
of merit and hence, dismissed.
----------
(2019)12 ILR A563

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 26849 of 2018

Mayank Babu Agrawal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner: