Kamal Singh v. State of U.P. and

Sanjay Kumar Srivastava : : Bhanu Pratap Singh Kachhawah, C.S.C. Court No. - 2 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

1. Earlier petitioner filed writ petition being Writ A No.13471 of 2023 (Kamal Singh vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated

16.10.2023. Order reads as follows:- "1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 and Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh Kachhawah, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 2 and 3.

2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition inter-alia praying therein for a direction from this court thereby commanding the Respondent No. 3 to consider his case and to treat compassionate appointment of the petitioner as a regular appointment from the date of his initial appointment and also to pay the consequential benefits.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that father of the petitioner while working on the post of Assistant Teacher, died in harness. Petitioner was given compassionate appointment on a Class-IV post vide order dated

25.10.1994, thereafter services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 29.01.2011 passed by Deputy Basic Education Officer, Etah. Petitioner, since the date of his regularization, has been receiving salary in the regular pay scale admissible to Class IV employees.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner's initial appointment on Class IV post was on compassionate ground and therefore, the said appointment is to be treated a regular appointment in regular pay scale of a Class IV employee from the date of initial appointment. In this regard, petitioner has also submitted a representation to the District Basic Education Officer, Etah on 23.8.2022, which has not been decided till date.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited attention of 2 WRIA No. 17354 of 2025 this court towards the judgment and order dated 2.8.2023 passed by this court in Writ-A No.6719 of 2023 (Praveen Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others), wherein this court has categorically held that appointment on compassionate ground has to be treated as regular appointment from the date of initial appointment and such appointee is entitled for payment of salary in a regular pay-scale from the date of his initial appointment.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that this writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be allowed by this court in terms of judgment and order dated 2.8.2023 passed by this court in Writ- A No.6719 of 2023 (Praveen Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others).

7. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 2 and 3 does not dispute the fact that the issue involved in the present writ petition has already been decided by this court vide judgment and order dated

2.8.2023 passed in Writ-A No. 6719 of 2023, wherein it has been held that compassionate appointment has to be treated as a regular appointment from the date of initial appointment and salary is also liable to be paid in regular pay-scale from the date of initial appointment.

8. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the petitioner in this writ petition has prayed that his appointment made on compassionate ground on a fixed pay may be treated as regular appointment.

9. I find that identical issue has already been considered and decided by this court vide judgment and order dated 2.8.2023 rendered in Writ-A No.6719 of 2023 (Praveen Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others), wherein it has been held that appointment on compassionate ground has to be treated as regular appointment from the date of initial appointment and such appointee is entitled for payment of salary in the regular pay-scale from the date of his initial appointment.

10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is finally disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before the District Basic Education Officer, Etah within fifteen days from today and if such representation is filed, Respondent No. 3 shall consider and decide the said representation strictly in light of the judgment and order dated 2.8.2023 rendered by this court in Writ-A No.6719 of 2023 (Praveen Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others) within two months thereafter. "

2. Pursuant to the aforesaid, letter dated 29.10.2023 was written by the petitioner before the District Basic Education Officer, Etah/ Respondent No.3. It is informed that pursuant to the aforesaid, after expiry of more than 18 months, the letter dated 3 WRIA No. 17354 of 2025

06.06.2025 was written by the Respondent No.3 to the petitioner directing him to appear in the office of Secretary U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Prayagraj on

12.06.2025.

3. It is argued that petitioner duly appeared in the office of U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Prayagraj on 12.06.2025, inspite of the same till date no decision has been taken, hence the present writ petition.

4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. From perusal of records it is clear that while disposing of an earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner dated 16.10.2023, specific direction has been given by this Court to the petitioner to submit a representation before the Respondent no.3 within 15 days and Respondent No.3 was directed to decide the same, within two months. Though the representation was submitted on 29.10.2023 and in place of two months, more than two years has already been lapsed but till date no decision has been taken.

6. Apart from the same, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon an order passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Etah of same school dated 27.08.2025 in which the claim of one Shri Jai Prakash, class IV employee was accepted and was directed to provide all the benefits related to the appointment from the date of appointment.

7. From perusal of the record it is clear that deliberately and willfully the respondent no.3 has not complied with the judgment and order dated 16.10.2023. In this view of the matter, the Court is of an opinion that the contempt proceedings should be initiated against the respondent no.3.

8. Issue notice to respondent no.3 to appear before this Court on 25.11.2025.

9. List on 25.11.2025. November 19, 2025 Swati (Prakash Padia,J.)

Sanjay Kumar Srivastava : : Bhanu Pratap Singh Kachhawah, C.S.C. Court No. - 2 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

1. Earlier petitioner filed writ petition being Writ A No.13471 of 2023 (Kamal Singh vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated

16.10.2023. Order reads as follows:- "1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 and Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh Kachhawah, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 2 and 3.

2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition inter-alia praying therein for a direction from this court thereby commanding the Respondent No. 3 to consider his case and to treat compassionate appointment of the petitioner as a regular appointment from the date of his initial appointment and also to pay the consequential benefits.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that father of the petitioner while working on the post of Assistant Teacher, died in harness. Petitioner was given compassionate appointment on a Class-IV post vide order dated

25.10.1994, thereafter services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 29.01.2011 passed by Deputy Basic Education Officer, Etah. Petitioner, since the date of his regularization, has been receiving salary in the regular pay scale admissible to Class IV employees.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner's initial appointment on Class IV post was on compassionate ground and therefore, the said appointment is to be treated a regular appointment in regular pay scale of a Class IV employee from the date of initial appointment. In this regard, petitioner has also submitted a representation to the District Basic Education Officer, Etah on 23.8.2022, which has not been decided till date.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited attention of 2 WRIA No. 17354 of 2025 this court towards the judgment and order dated 2.8.2023 passed by this court in Writ-A No.6719 of 2023 (Praveen Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others), wherein this court has categorically held that appointment on compassionate ground has to be treated as regular appointment from the date of initial appointment and such appointee is entitled for payment of salary in a regular pay-scale from the date of his initial appointment.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that this writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be allowed by this court in terms of judgment and order dated 2.8.2023 passed by this court in Writ- A No.6719 of 2023 (Praveen Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others).

7. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents No. 2 and 3 does not dispute the fact that the issue involved in the present writ petition has already been decided by this court vide judgment and order dated

2.8.2023 passed in Writ-A No. 6719 of 2023, wherein it has been held that compassionate appointment has to be treated as a regular appointment from the date of initial appointment and salary is also liable to be paid in regular pay-scale from the date of initial appointment.

8. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the petitioner in this writ petition has prayed that his appointment made on compassionate ground on a fixed pay may be treated as regular appointment.

9. I find that identical issue has already been considered and decided by this court vide judgment and order dated 2.8.2023 rendered in Writ-A No.6719 of 2023 (Praveen Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others), wherein it has been held that appointment on compassionate ground has to be treated as regular appointment from the date of initial appointment and such appointee is entitled for payment of salary in the regular pay-scale from the date of his initial appointment.

10. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is finally disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before the District Basic Education Officer, Etah within fifteen days from today and if such representation is filed, Respondent No. 3 shall consider and decide the said representation strictly in light of the judgment and order dated 2.8.2023 rendered by this court in Writ-A No.6719 of 2023 (Praveen Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others) within two months thereafter. "

2. Pursuant to the aforesaid, letter dated 29.10.2023 was written by the petitioner before the District Basic Education Officer, Etah/ Respondent No.3. It is informed that pursuant to the aforesaid, after expiry of more than 18 months, the letter dated 3 WRIA No. 17354 of 2025

06.06.2025 was written by the Respondent No.3 to the petitioner directing him to appear in the office of Secretary U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Prayagraj on

12.06.2025.

3. It is argued that petitioner duly appeared in the office of U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Prayagraj on 12.06.2025, inspite of the same till date no decision has been taken, hence the present writ petition.

4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. From perusal of records it is clear that while disposing of an earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner dated 16.10.2023, specific direction has been given by this Court to the petitioner to submit a representation before the Respondent no.3 within 15 days and Respondent No.3 was directed to decide the same, within two months. Though the representation was submitted on 29.10.2023 and in place of two months, more than two years has already been lapsed but till date no decision has been taken.

6. Apart from the same, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon an order passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Etah of same school dated 27.08.2025 in which the claim of one Shri Jai Prakash, class IV employee was accepted and was directed to provide all the benefits related to the appointment from the date of appointment.

7. From perusal of the record it is clear that deliberately and willfully the respondent no.3 has not complied with the judgment and order dated 16.10.2023. In this view of the matter, the Court is of an opinion that the contempt proceedings should be initiated against the respondent no.3.

8. Issue notice to respondent no.3 to appear before this Court on 25.11.2025.

9. List on 25.11.2025. November 19, 2025 Swati (Prakash Padia,J.)