High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113289 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5962 of 2004 Petitioner :- Suneel Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Principal Education And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- V.K. Singh, Shubhranshu Shekhar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Shubhranshu Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 3. Present writ petition has been filed questioning the order dated 19/20.06.2003 passed by first respondent. 4. The issue involved in the instant case is that respondent no.3- Committee of Management vide its resolution dated 10.09.2000 to appoint the petitioner on the post of teacher in Modern Subject and the same was sent to the respondents for approval and the petitioner was allowed to join duties vide order dated 17.05.2001. Accordingly, the petitioner has continued in discharging his duties with utmost satisfaction of the management. Despite discharging his duties, District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur has not released salary to the petitioner. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground as per the rules which are in vogue as on the date of appointment. Despite repeated requests, the respondents have not approved and the salary was not released, he approached this Court by way of filling Writ Petition No. 10965 of 2003 requesting release of salary from 19.05.2001. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 10.03.2003 directing District Inspector of Schools to decide the matter within six weeks. When the said order was not complied, the petitioner pressed the provision of Contempt Act. In view of the same, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner vide impugned order. The rejection was made only on the ground that in view of the Government Order dated 14.06.1999, whereby the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 have been applicable and facility has been extended to the teachers and other employees of Sanskrit Viswavidyalaya and its affiliated colleges. And by interpreting the said Government Order stating that the same is only applicable to the cases who have died after 16.06.1999, and their cases are only to be considered in the said scheme. Assailing the same, present writ petition has been filed. 6. Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that interpretation made by the respondents are strange and not know to law. Any rule is to be applied at the time of consideration of application. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner was appointed subsequent to 14.06.1999. Hence, the respondents are not entitled to reject the case of the petitioner on the ground that the death of the father of the petitioner is much prior to the Government Order dated 14.6.1999. 7. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the observations made by this Court in Writ A No. 7346 of 2004 (Sushil Kumar Mishra vs. State of U.P. and Others), wherein identical issue fell for consideration. Relevant portion of the said order, is as under: "In pursuance of the aforesaid direction, the Deputy Director of Education (Sanskrit) vide order dated 31.12.2003 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that provision for making compassionate appointment was introduced in the Statute of the University for the first time vide Government Order dated 14.06.1999 and since on 18.10.1998 when the father of the petitioner died, there existed no provision for giving compassionate appointment as such the petitioner is not entitled for the same. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since at the time of making appointment there existed a provision in the Statute for giving compassionate appointment as such the claim of the petitioner has wrongly and illegally been rejected on the ground that no such provision existed on the date of death of the father. In reply, the learned Standing Counsel has tried to justify the impugned order by urging that compassionate appointment can only be made if there exists a rule or provision and in the absence of the same at the time of death of an employee, the dependents would not be entitled to compassionate appointment. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Undisputedly, when the father of the petitioner died on 18.10.1998 there existed no provision in the Statute of the University for compassionate appointment. The provision was introduced for the first time by making amendment in the Statute by introducing Statue 21.06 which came into effect on 14.6.1999. Thus, when the petitioner made application on 13.10.2000, there was a provision in the Statute for making compassionate appointment. Equally undisputed is the fact that the appointment of the petitioner was duly approved by the Vice Chancellor, Samuprnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi vide letter dated 27.06.2001 (Copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure '4' to the writ petition). Once there existed a provision in the Statute for compassionate appointment at the time the petitioner applied for the same, there is no legally justifiable ground to deny the said benefit on the ground that the provision for compassionate appointment did not exist at the time of death of the employee. The provision of the rule as it existed on the date of making application shall apply and the same being very much in existence on the date when the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, the benefit cannot be denied.
Decision
In view of the above facts and discussions, the impugned order dated 31.12.20003 passed by the respondent no. 2 is not liable to be sustained and is hereby quashed. The writ petition stands allowed and the petitioner shall be entitled for payment of salary along with arrears." 8. A perusal of the above order clearly declared that when the application was made subsequent to the Government Order dated 14.6.1999 and the appointment was taken place also subsequent to the said government order, hence, the appointment is valid and it should be treated as per the Government Order dated 14.6.1999. 9. Considering the said observations, this writ petition is also disposed of by setting aside the impugned order dated 19/20.06.2003 passed by first respondent. The matter is remitted back to the respondents to pass appropriate order on approval of the petitioner and also release salaries/all dues to the petitioner from the date of his appointment, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Noman (Donadi Ramesh, J.) Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- NOMAN AHMAD NOMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad