High Court · 2022

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. Heard Sri Ved Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Shri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and perused the record. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to consider the petitioner as regular Class IV employee on the date of his appointment and grant due consequential benefit by passing appropriate order. In nutshell the case of the petitioner is that petitioner's father Raj Kumar who was working on the post of Assistant Teacher in Senior Basic School, Mandhata, Block Marahara, District Etah died-in-harness. The petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules. By order dated 21.8.2009 passed by the competent authority, petitioner was appointed on class IV post on compassionate grounds on fixed pay scale. After joining his service the petitioner raised grievance through representation dated 24.9.2009 that there was no justification or reason to appoint him on consolidated salary as he is entitled for regular appointment/ salary. The petitioner lastly submitted representation before the District Basic Education Officer, Etha on 22.12.2021, but no action has been taken till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned order submits that petitioner's appointment on fixed pay scale is unwarranted and contrary to law as laid down by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ravi Karan Singh Vs. State of U.P. And others ( 1999) 3 UPLBEC 2263, and the Government order dated 30.1.1996 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner so he is entitled for regular appointment/salary on the post in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad, vide letter dated 3.12.2001 addressed to all the Regional Assistant Director of Education (Basic), Saharanpur/Meerut Region has issued letter with regard to appointment under dying-in-harness which is as under:- "पपषक, सच(cid:7)व, उ0 प0 बपससक च(cid:13)क(cid:15) पर(cid:18)षद,इल(cid:15)ह(cid:15)ब(cid:15)द। सपव(cid:15) मम, म(cid:26)डल(cid:28)य सह(cid:15)यक च(cid:13)क(cid:15) च(cid:30)दप(cid:13)क (बपससक) सह(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:30)पप(cid:18)/मप(cid:18)ठ म(cid:26)डल पत(cid:15)"क: बप0 च(cid:13)0 प0/14486-506/2001-02 चद(cid:30)(cid:15)"क : 03 चदस#ब(cid:18), 2001 चवषय- म$तक आस’त( क) च(cid:30)यपच* कप स#ब+ध मम। मह-दय, पर(cid:18)षद कप पर(cid:18)ज(cid:15)(cid:30) मम यह त/य ल(cid:15)य(cid:15) गय(cid:15) ह1 चक आपकप म(cid:26)डल कप ज(cid:30)पद(cid:28)य असधक(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:28) म$तक आस’त कप 4प मम (cid:7)तपरर ’पण(cid:28) कप पद( प(cid:18) च(cid:30)यत वपत(cid:30) मम च(cid:30)यपच*य(cid:15)" क(cid:18) (cid:18)हप हह, जब चक पर(cid:18)षद कप पत स"9य(cid:15)- बप0 च(cid:13)0 प0/38749/39107/95-96 चद(cid:30)(cid:15)"क 30.1.96 द(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:15) अवगत क(cid:18)(cid:15)य(cid:15) गय(cid:15) ह1 चक च(cid:30)यत वपत(cid:30)म(cid:15)(cid:30) मम क(cid:15)यर(cid:18)त कमर(cid:7)(cid:15)र(cid:18)य( क- ज(cid:30)पद मम स$सजत च(cid:30)यचमत वपत(cid:30) ;म कप पद( प(cid:18) सम(cid:15)य-सजत क(cid:18) चदय(cid:15) ज(cid:15)य औ(cid:18) च(cid:30)यत वपत(cid:30) कप पद( क- सम(cid:15)= क(cid:18) चदय(cid:15) ज(cid:15)य। उ* पच;य(cid:15) कप अ(cid:30)पस(cid:15)(cid:18) जब च(cid:30)यत वपत(cid:30) कप पद सम(cid:15)= क(cid:18)(cid:30)प क(cid:15) च(cid:30)दर(cid:13) दप चदय(cid:15) गय(cid:15) ह1 त- वतरम(cid:15)(cid:30) मम म$तक आस’त( क) च(cid:30)यपच*य(cid:15)" च(cid:30)यत वपत(cid:30) मम क(cid:18)(cid:30)प क(cid:15) औच(cid:7)?य भ(cid:28) सम(cid:15)= ह- गय(cid:15) ह1। (cid:13)(cid:15)स(cid:30)(cid:15)दप(cid:13) स"9य(cid:15)-5193/15-5-2000-400(222)/99 चद(cid:30)(cid:15)"क 4 ससत#ब(cid:18), 2000 कप प(cid:15)वध(cid:15)(cid:30)( कप अ(cid:30)पस(cid:15)(cid:18) म$तक आस’त( क) च(cid:30)यपच*य(cid:15)" (cid:7)तपरर ’पण(cid:28) कप र(cid:18)*/असधस"9य पद( कप पचत क(cid:18)(cid:30)प क(cid:15) प(cid:15)वध(cid:15)(cid:30) चकय(cid:15) गय(cid:15) ह1। तद(cid:30)पस(cid:15)(cid:18) ज(cid:30)पद कप सलयप आव"चAत च(cid:30)यचमत वपत(cid:30) ;म कप र(cid:18)* पद( अरव(cid:15) असधस"9य पद( कप पचत म$तक आस’त( क) च(cid:30)यपच*य(cid:15)" क) ज(cid:15)(cid:30)(cid:28) (cid:7)(cid:15)चहए। भवद(cid:28)य स"जय सस+ह(cid:15) सच(cid:7)व उ0 प0 बपससक च(cid:13)क(cid:15) पर(cid:18)षद इल(cid:15)ह(cid:15)ब(cid:15)द।" Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in opposition to the writ petition submits that the Government Order dated 30.1.1996 provides that the employees who are appointed in rural as well as in urban area can only be absorbed when the post will become vacant. The Government order dated 30.1.1996 specifically provides that the regular pay scale will be provided from the date of absorption and not from the date of initial appointment. The Government Order dated 30.1.1996 is not applicable to case of the persons who were appointed on compassionate ground under Dying in Harness Rules, so the action on the part of respondent No. 3 in view of Government Order dated 30.1.1996 is void ab initio and without jurisdiction. Compassionate appointment cannot be given on consolidated salary as the same is of permanent nature as held by by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ravi Karan Singh ( supra) which is quoted herein below:- "This petition has come up before us on a reference made by the learned Single Judge by his order dated 19.12.1997. The point involved is very simple, that is, whether an appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules is a permanent appointment or temporary appointment. According to the learned Single Judge, this Court had earlier held that an appointment under Dying in Harness Rules is a permanent appoint vide Budhi Sagar Dubey v. D.O.I.S., (1993) 1 UPLBEC 197; Gulab Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, (1991) 2 UPLBEC 995 and Dhirendra Pratap Singh v. D.I.O.S. & Others. (1991) 1 UPLBEC 427. The learned Single Judge who passed the referring order dated 19.12.1997 disagreed with the above mentioned decisions and hence has referred the matter to a larger Bench. In our opinion, an appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules has to be treated as a permanent appointment otherwise if such appointment is treated to be a temporary appointment then it will follow that soon after the appointment the service can be terminated and this will nullify the very purpose of the Dying in Harness Rule because such appointment is intended to provide immediate relief to the family on the sudden death of the bread-earner. We, therefore, hold that the appointment under Dying in Harness Rule is a permanent appointment and not a temporary appointment and hence the provisions of U.P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975 will not apply to such appointments. The petition is disposed of accordingly." In view of the admitted facts as attracted to the case of the petitioner as well as the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ravi Karan Singh (supra), the appointment of the petitioner on fixed salary is not sustained in the eyes of law. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent no.3 is directed to re-examine the matter afresh in the light of the observations made herein above, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of service of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 26.9.2022 Ravi Prakash Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad