WRIA/29002/2019 of ANKIT KUMAR Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU ADDL. CHIEF SECY. HEALTH and FAMILY and ORS. on 6 April 2026

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking appointment of the petitioner for appointment under The U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1974') in accordance with the order dated 04.07.2018 passed in Inspector General (Stamp & Registration), Lucknow.

3. This is second petition claiming appointment on compassionate ground under Rules, 1974. First writ petition being Writ Petition No.19158(SS) of 2017 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 18.09.2017. Operative portion of the order dated 18.09.2017 would read as under:- "3. Since the petitioner's adoption is not in accordance with law, as such no direction can be issued for grant of compassionate appointment, as is prayed in this matter. The order of Deputy Director (Administration) dated 21st June, 2017, therefore, does not require any interference and the challenge laid to the order fails.

4. A direction, however, is issued to the I.G. (Registration & Stamps) to examine the issue as to how a document of 1997 has been entertained for registration in 2014, without any orders passed by the competent court and appropriate steps, as may be required to be drawn to deal with the situation, shall be undertaken, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Learned Standing Counsel is directed to communicate this order to the I.G. (Registration & Stamps), within a week from today.

5. Writ petition is, accordingly, consigned to records.

6. Copy of this order shall be supplied to the learned Standing Counsel within 48 hours, without any charges."

4. After filing this petition, order sheet would disclose that on each and every date when the matter was listed, counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment on one pretexts or the other.

5. When the case was listed on 22.10.2019, counsel for the petitioner made a request for adjournment and the case was directed to be listed on 07.11.2019. On 07.11.2019, the case was directed to be listed in the next week on 15.11.2019. On 15.11.2019, again counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment, and it was directed to list the case in the next week on 22.03.2021. On 22.03.2021, counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment and the case was directed to be listed on 29.04.2021. On 16.11.2022 counsel for the petitioner prayed for adjournment and the case was adjourned and directed to be listed in the week commencing 19.12.2022. On 09.01.2023 counsel for the petitioner again prayed for adjournment, and the case was directed to be listed in 3rd week of February, 2023. Again on 19.04.2023 counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment on the ground of his ill health and, therefore, the matter was directed to be listed peremptorily in the next cause list. Thus, the case is listed peremptorily today.

6. Despite the matter being listed peremptorily, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has sought adjournment on the ground of him being out of station today. As the matter is listed peremptorily today, no request for adjournment can be accepted. Even otherwise, second petition for the same cause of action is not maintainable and therefore, this petition is dismissed for want of prosecution as well as on merit. (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.) Order Date :- 3.5.2023 prateek Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench