High Court · 2025 on 21 May 2025

Judgment

1. Heard Sri Gopal Ji Rai, advocate holding brief of Sri Pramod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri A.K. Nagvanshi, learned Additional C.S.C.

2. Petitioner has claimed that his father was appointed on

28.08.1996 as Assistant Teacher in pursuance of an advertisement issued on 04.08.1996 after facing selection committee on

20.08.1996 in presence of nominee of BSA concerned which was approved by Committee of Management on 21.08.1996 and after that his appointment was approved by B.S.A. concerned on

27.08.1996.

3. It is further case of petitioner that his father got salary till 1999, however, thereafter matter was remained pending since there were objections regarding appointment of teachers when school was accorded grant-in-aid and their names were required to be approved for payment of salary from State Exchequer.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has referred documents annexed along with this writ petition that when claim of father of petitioner and others were again rejected on 09.05.2003, a writ petition was filed by them being Writ A No. 47856/2003

which was disposed of vide order dated 10.05.2012 that inquiry report be provided to father of petitioner and others. Thereafter, a 3 Members’ Committee was constituted and report dated

08.04.2015 was submitted that since pages no. 41 to 42 were missing in Dispatch Register, therefore, claim was rejected. Before it, unfortunately petitioner died on 28.05.2012.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that in above circumstances, other persons have filed another writ being Writ A No. 17766/2016 wherein an order dated 21.04.2016 was passed. The petitioner being minor and his mother being illiterate were not able to pursue case of father of petitioner and have not challenged order dated 08.04.2015.

6. Learned counsel also submitted that in pursuance of order dated 21.04.2016, District Basic Education Officer has passed an order dated 24.05.2016 wherein it was directed that other teachers be granted salary and relevant part thereof is quoted below :- ्ቛा(cid:19)ा पाया दि涔叩नांक १湽卛. 쁗륾५. ्ቚा⓼⸬ क(cid:19)ाय ት गया मा쁗륾 उ쀷꜏ न्यायालय इलाहाबा涔叩 २쁗륾쁗륾湽卛 म孀叉 पारि(cid:19)㿳㟘 आ涔叩े┙⸑ दि涔叩नांक १५. 쁗륾५. “ म孀叉 योजि(cid:16)㿳㟘 रि(cid:19)⶟⹹ याचि(cid:22)का सं쁗륾 ४७८५६/ २쁗륾१२ एवं रि(cid:19)⶟⹹ याचि(cid:22)का सं쁗륾 १७७६६/ २쁗륾१५ म孀叉 मा쁗륾 उ쀷꜏ न्यायालय इलाहाबा涔叩 के पारि(cid:19)㿳㟘 आ涔叩े┙⸑ दि涔叩नांक २१. 쁗륾४. २쁗륾१६ क䧂䁿 स቏ኌ⶟⹹फाइᮀᯞ कॉप ት व वा涔叩 ትगण敊滟 के ्ቚत्यावे涔叩न दि涔叩नांक 쁗륾湽卛. 쁗륾५. २쁗륾१६ को ्ቚा⓼⸬ हो (cid:16)ाने के उप(cid:19)ां㿳㟘 ्ቚ्቞ग㿳㟘 ्ቚक(cid:19)ण म孀叉 २쁗륾१६ को सुनवाई के उप(cid:19)ां㿳㟘 ्ቚधानाध्यापक ्ቚबंधक एवं वा涔叩 ትगण敊滟 ्ቛा(cid:19)ा उपलब्ध क(cid:19)ाये गए साቌኚय सदिह㿳㟘 अभि@कथन 㿳㟘था कायाBलय म孀叉 उपलब्ध अभि@लेख敊滟 एवं गय ት सत्यापन आख्या के सत्यापन सदिमचि㿳㟘 22.05.1986 से परि(cid:19)┙⸑ ትलनोप(cid:19)ान्㿳㟘 30.05.1986 चिᮀᯞस्पै(cid:22) पंजि(cid:16)का से गायब 㿳㟘क अंदिक㿳㟘 दिकया गया है, है岠寉 जि(cid:16)सम孀叉㿳㟘था उस ት अव(cid:19)ोह ት ्ቅम म孀叉 ᮀᯞा쁗륾 (cid:19)ाम मनोह(cid:19) लोदिहया लघु माध्यदिमक दिव्ቕालय अवधनग(cid:19) ग(cid:16)(cid:19)ह ት, दिनगB㿳㟘 प涔叩सृ(cid:16)न का प्ቔांक 720-22/1986-87/ अंदिक㿳㟘 है, प(cid:19) उप(cid:19)ो㜃ⓣ प्ቔांक 720-22/1986-87 दि涔叩नांक जि(cid:16)सके आधा(cid:19) का अंकन अभि@लेख म孀叉 होने क䧂䁿 पुदिO हो㿳㟘 ት है, एवं 22.05.1986 दिनयुदि㜃ⓣ से संबंचिध㿳㟘 दिव्ሺापन क䧂䁿 अऩुमचि㿳㟘, वा涔叩 ትगण敊滟 क䧂䁿 पयBवे撱占क नादिम㿳㟘 क(cid:19)ने संबंध प्ቔ व अनुमो涔叩न आदि涔叩 के संबंध म孀叉 (cid:16)ो प्ቔ दिनगB㿳㟘 दिकये वह उस भि┙⸑दिव(cid:19) चिᮀᯞस्पै(cid:22) पंजि(cid:16)का म孀叉 अंदिक㿳㟘 है, गये है, जि(cid:16)स भि┙⸑दिव(cid:19) चिᮀᯞस्पै(cid:22) पंजि(cid:16)का के गायब होने क䧂䁿 पुदिO होने प(cid:19) मा쁗륾 उ쀷꜏ न्यायालय इलाहाबा涔叩 ्ቛा(cid:19)ा याचि(cid:22)का सं쁗륾 54719/2006 涔叩ौ(cid:19)ान दिक दि涔叩नांक पे(cid:16) संख्या- 41 एवं 42 चिᮀᯞस्पै(cid:22) संख्या 693 से 779 दि涔叩नांक 22.05.1986 मह(cid:19)ा(cid:16)गं(cid:16) के प撱占 म孀叉 म孀叉 सुनवाई के 2 दिवरू꾟팔 ्ቚथम सू(cid:22)ना 㿳㟘क 㿳㟘त्काल ትन जि(cid:16)ला बेजिसक भि┙⸑撱占ा अचिधका(cid:19) ት 㿳㟘था होने प(cid:19) 㿳㟘त्काल ትन 涔叩ो जि(cid:16)ला बेजिसक भि┙⸑撱占ा अचिधका(cid:19) ት व 㿳㟘त्काल ትन भि┙⸑दिव(cid:19) सहायक ्ቦ ት (cid:19)ा(cid:16)ेन्꼃ꛡ लाल ्ቦ ትवास्㿳㟘व व वरि(cid:19)勢䨠 लिलदिपक ्ቦ ት ्ቚेम रि(cid:19)पो⶟⹹B को㿳㟘वाल ት मह(cid:19)ा(cid:16)गं(cid:16) म孀叉涔叩(cid:16)B (cid:22)न्꼃ꛡ गु⓼⸬ के इस ्ቚका(cid:19) प涔叩सृ(cid:16)न, दिव्ሺापन, क(cid:19)ाने का आ涔叩े┙⸑ दि涔叩या गया था, दिनगB㿳㟘 दिनयुदि㜃ⓣ प्ቔ के पयBवे撱占क एवं अनुमो涔叩न के उप(cid:19)ान्㿳㟘 ्ቚबन्धक ्ቛा(cid:19)ा चि㿳㟘भिथ से (cid:16)नव(cid:19) ት, फलस्वरूप वास्㿳㟘दिवक कायB@ा(cid:19) ्ቇहण क(cid:19)ने क䧂䁿 1999 दिवኢ⑙ एवं लेखाचिधका(cid:19) ት, दिकये गये वे㿳㟘न @ुग㿳㟘ान महा(cid:19)ा(cid:16)गं(cid:16) ्ቛा(cid:19)ा का दिनयमानुकू ल होने के आधा(cid:19) प(cid:19) वा涔叩 ትगण敊滟 के वे㿳㟘न का @ुग㿳㟘ान दिवኢ⑙ एवं लेखाचिधका(cid:19) ት, दिकये (cid:16)ाने का आ涔叩े┙⸑ पारि(cid:19)㿳㟘 क(cid:19)㿳㟘े हुए वा涔叩 ትगण敊滟 के ्ቚा⓼⸬ क(cid:19)ाये गये ्ቚत्यावे涔叩न दि涔叩नांक 03.05.2016 दिनस्㿳㟘ा(cid:19)ण मा쁗륾 उ쀷꜏ न्यायालय इलाहाबा涔叩 के आ涔叩े┙⸑ दि涔叩नांक 21.04.2016 के अऩुपालन म孀叉 ए㿳㟘救敲 ्ቛा(cid:19)ा ्ቚ्቞ग㿳㟘 ्ቚक(cid:19)ण दिनस्㿳㟘ारि(cid:19)㿳㟘 दिकया (cid:16)ा㿳㟘ा है岠寉 बेजिसक भि┙⸑撱占ा, बेजिसक भि┙⸑撱占ा, मह(cid:19)ा(cid:16)गं(cid:16) ्ቛा(cid:19)ा ” का

7. Learned counsel further submitted that since case of similar situated teachers as petitioner’s father were allowed but since petitioner’s father died in 2012, his case was not considered.

8. Learned counsel further submitted that when petitioner became major, he has filed an application for compassionate appointment on 26.07.2016 and when it was not decided, petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing Writ A No. 51933/2016 which was disposed of vide order dated 16.12.2016 with a direction to consider case of petitioner.

9. However, when his application was not considered and order dated 16.12.2016 passed by this Court was not complied with, the petitioner approached this Court again by filing Writ A No. 11229/2019 which was disposed of vide order dated

25.07.2019 with a direction to consider fresh application for compassionate appointment.

10. In aforesaid circumstances, impugned order dated

19.06.2020 was passed that since appointment of petitioner’s father was found irregular and beyond strength, therefore, claim was rejected. 3

11. Learned counsel submitted that in the impugned order, earlier order passed by this Court on 21.04.2016 and consequential order dated 24.05.2016 passed by concerned respondent was completely ignored wherein claim of similarly situated persons as petitioner’s father was accepted, however, since he has expired in the year 2012, therefore, his claim was not finalized.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents has submitted that petitioner remained lethargic as he has not taken any step after his father’s death and he has never tried to claim petitioner’s salary or benefit of his service and without any order to give salary to petitioner’s father, he has filed application for compassionate appointment.

13. I have considered above submissions and perused the records.

14. It is well settled in case petitioner wants compassionate appointment on claiming his father dying in harness, it has to be proved that his father was in regular service and was paid salary, however, in present case, as referred above, petitioner’s father died in the year 2012 and subsequent order dated 08.04.2015 being against him also was remained unchallenged qua to petitioner’s father, therefore, benefit of subsequent judgment of this Court and order dated 24.05.2016 could not be granted.

15. Petitioner and her mother remained silent and have never tried to challenge order dated 08.04.2015, therefore, in absence of any specific order for payment of salary to petitioner’s father or his services were found to be regular, it cannot be considered that petitioner’s father has died in harness. 4

16. In aforesaid circumstances, very basis of filing application for compassionate appointment is not available, therefore, said claim on behalf of petitioner does not survive.

17. In view of above, writ petition lacks merit, hence, dismissed. Order Date :- May 21, 2025 Sinha-N. [Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.] NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 5