Delay in pursuing a claim for compassionate appointment disqualifies entitlement to relief, as significant delays suggest the absence of immediate financial need.

JUDGMENT :

PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

1. Heard Sri Ayush Mishra holding brief of Sri S.K Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dilip Kumar Kesarwani, learned counsel for the state.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.04.2010 passed by Chief General Manager (Administration)/respondent no. 2 and further for a mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to decide the reminder dated 07.05.2010 of the petitioner and provide appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground.

3. The facts as stated in the petition are that the petitioner's father, Late. Sri Naresh Chand, was appointed as driver in Bhaishali Depo of Meerut Region, Meerut of the corporation and died on 29.04.1997. At the time of death of the father, the petitioner was minor hence, the widow Smt. Chandra Devi (mother of the petitioner) filed a representation dated 25.07.1997 with the prayer to give appointment after the petitioner attained the age of maturity. The petitioner submitted a representation along with all required documents on 16.12.2004 but the respondents could not consider the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed Writ Petition A. No. 49560 of 2007 (Kuldeep Versus The General Manager), and the Hon'ble High Court, considering the claim of petitioner, disposed of the same vide order dated 21.07.2008 directing the respondents to decide the same. However, the same has not been considered by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Contempt Application (Civil) No. 1701 of 2010 which was disposed of vide order dated 09.04.2010 with the observation that opposite party no. 2 shall decide the representation of the applicant and intimate him of the order to the self-addressed within a week thereafter. In compliance of the order dated 09.04.2010, respondent no. 2 (Administration) rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 27.04.2010 with the finding that the petitioner's claim cannot be considered as per government order dated 11.07.2003, the claim of compensate appointment opportunity ended by virtue of U.P. Road Transport Corporation vide impugned order dated 27.04.2010. The petitioner met several times personally to respondent no. 2 and requested to consider his compassionate appointment but the same has neither been denied nor accepted and is making pendency till date. However, after issue of notification of compassionate appointment for the 1165 posts of conductor in respondents' department came to the knowledge of the petitioner, he submitted a representation before the authorities and also to the minister of U.P. State Road Transport. From perusal of the circular order dated 01.05.2025 and consequential order dated 05.05.2025, the petitioner feels aggrieved. Hence, the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that similarly situated employees have been granted the benefits which have been denied to the petitioner.

5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the petition and submits that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold on the account of gross delay and laches alone without going into the merit of the case. He further submits that the impugned order dated 27.04.2010 rejecting the petitioner's claim was passed approximately 15 years ago and the present petitio