High Court · 2025

learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 & 5.

2. The orders dated 08.03.2022 and 20.09.2022 passed by the respondent No.4/District Basic Education Officer, Meerut are under challenge in the present petition. A further prayer has also been to treat the services of the petitioners to be regularized from the date of their initial appointment, to pay salary on the increased pay scale, pay arrears of salary and also grant the petitioners other consequential benefits, release the difference of salary adjusting fixed payment made from their initial appointment.

3. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioners have earlier approached this Court by filing Writ A No.9339 of 2021 which was disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 06.08.2021. The aforesaid order reads as follows:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel and Shri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioners have been offered compassionate appointment on different dates. Their services have been regularized and the date of regularization is being treated to be the date of entry into service. Representation have been made by the petitioners stating that compassionate appointment could not be on temporary basis particularly as the petitioners' father were regular employees. Reliance is placed upon judgment of this Court in 'Nagesh Katariya Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2009) 6 ADJ 244'. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners initial appointment ought to be treated as the date of entry into service. Since such representation has not been decided till date, the petitioners are before this Court. Learned Standing Counsel and Sri Shivam Yadav, Advocate for the respondents submit that such grievance of the petitioners would be got examined by the competent authority in accordance with law. This Court in the case of Nagesh Katariya (supra) has already observed that appointment on compassionate ground ordinarily would be substantive appointment and not temporary. Claim of the petitioners, therefore, is required to be examined by the respondent no.6 in light of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment. This petition accordingly stands disposed of by directing respondent no.6 to examine petitioners' grievance in light of the above observation, by passing a reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of presentation of copy of this order. The concerned Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of computerized copy of this order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall act accordingly without waiting for submission of the certified copy of this order.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, an order dated 08.03.2022 was passed by the District Basic Education Officer Meerut by which a direction permission was given to make regular salary to the petitioners with effect from 30.01.1996. Though the aforesaid order has become final between the parties but without notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, by way of correction fresh order has been passed by the same authority on 20.09.2022 by which the permission granted to make regular payment of salary from 30.01.1996 was recalled and a direction was given to make regular payment of salary and direction was given to make regular payment to the petitioner on the date of their regularization.

5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that all the petitioners were initially appointed under the dying-in harness rules of fixed pay. It is argued that since the petitioners were appointed under the dying in harness rules, therefore, they became entitled for consideration of their case for regular appointment as per law laid down by this Court in the case of Ravi Karan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others (1999) 3 UPLBEC 2263. Learned counsel for th petitioner also relied upon a judgement and order dated 23.09.2022 passed by this Court in the case of Asif Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ A No.15205 of 2022). It is further argued that subsequent to the order passed by the respondent No.4 on 20.09.2022 is liable to be set aside only on the ground that the same has been passed by way of correction which is not permissible in law as well as the same has been passed without providing any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner though the aforesaid orders have civil consequences.

6. On the other hand, Sri Devesh Vikram, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 argued that since certain short comings were found in the order dated 08.03.2022, fresh order has been passed by him on 20.09.2022.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. From perusal of the record, it is clear that pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 06.08.2021, a decision was taken by the respondent No.4/District Basic Education Officer, Meerut on 08.03.2022 by which a direction was given to make payment of regular salary to the petitioners with effect from 30.01.1996 but without providing any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, by way of review, another order was passed by him on 20.09.2022 by which the direction given to make payment of regular salary from 30.01.1996 was recalled and a direction was given to make payment of salary to the petitioners from the date of their regularization.

9. Since the order dated 20.09.2022 was passed by way of correction but nothing has been brought on record by learned counsel for respondent No.4 that under which provision of law, the correction has been made by the respondent No.4 in its order dated 08.03.2022. Apart from the same, before passing the order dated

20.09.2022, no notice or opportunity of hearing whatsoever has been provided to the petitioners.

10. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that order dated

20.09.2022 passed by the respondent No.4/District Basic Education Officer, Meerut is without jurisdiction, hence the same is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside.

11. The respondent No.4/District Basic Education Officer, Meerut is directed to pass fresh order taking into consideration the law laid down by this Court in some of the cases as quoted above most expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks from today.

12. It is made clear that the order dated 08.03.2022 passed by the respondent No.4 will not come in the way of respondent No.4 for taking fresh decision in the matter.

13. Sri Devesh Vikram, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 is directed to inform regarding this order to the authorities within a period of ten days from today.

14. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is party allowed. Order Date :- 9.1.2025 saqlain SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 & 5.

2. The orders dated 08.03.2022 and 20.09.2022 passed by the respondent No.4/District Basic Education Officer, Meerut are under challenge in the present petition. A further prayer has also been to treat the services of the petitioners to be regularized from the date of their initial appointment, to pay salary on the increased pay scale, pay arrears of salary and also grant the petitioners other consequential benefits, release the difference of salary adjusting fixed payment made from their initial appointment.

3. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioners have earlier approached this Court by filing Writ A No.9339 of 2021 which was disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 06.08.2021. The aforesaid order reads as follows:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel and Shri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioners have been offered compassionate appointment on different dates. Their services have been regularized and the date of regularization is being treated to be the date of entry into service. Representation have been made by the petitioners stating that compassionate appointment could not be on temporary basis particularly as the petitioners' father were regular employees. Reliance is placed upon judgment of this Court in 'Nagesh Katariya Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2009) 6 ADJ 244'. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners initial appointment ought to be treated as the date of entry into service. Since such representation has not been decided till date, the petitioners are before this Court. Learned Standing Counsel and Sri Shivam Yadav, Advocate for the respondents submit that such grievance of the petitioners would be got examined by the competent authority in accordance with law. This Court in the case of Nagesh Katariya (supra) has already observed that appointment on compassionate ground ordinarily would be substantive appointment and not temporary. Claim of the petitioners, therefore, is required to be examined by the respondent no.6 in light of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment. This petition accordingly stands disposed of by directing respondent no.6 to examine petitioners' grievance in light of the above observation, by passing a reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of presentation of copy of this order. The concerned Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of computerized copy of this order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall act accordingly without waiting for submission of the certified copy of this order.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, an order dated 08.03.2022 was passed by the District Basic Education Officer Meerut by which a direction permission was given to make regular salary to the petitioners with effect from 30.01.1996. Though the aforesaid order has become final between the parties but without notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, by way of correction fresh order has been passed by the same authority on 20.09.2022 by which the permission granted to make regular payment of salary from 30.01.1996 was recalled and a direction was given to make regular payment of salary and direction was given to make regular payment to the petitioner on the date of their regularization.

5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that all the petitioners were initially appointed under the dying-in harness rules of fixed pay. It is argued that since the petitioners were appointed under the dying in harness rules, therefore, they became entitled for consideration of their case for regular appointment as per law laid down by this Court in the case of Ravi Karan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others (1999) 3 UPLBEC 2263. Learned counsel for th petitioner also relied upon a judgement and order dated 23.09.2022 passed by this Court in the case of Asif Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ A No.15205 of 2022). It is further argued that subsequent to the order passed by the respondent No.4 on 20.09.2022 is liable to be set aside only on the ground that the same has been passed by way of correction which is not permissible in law as well as the same has been passed without providing any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner though the aforesaid orders have civil consequences.

6. On the other hand, Sri Devesh Vikram, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 argued that since certain short comings were found in the order dated 08.03.2022, fresh order has been passed by him on 20.09.2022.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. From perusal of the record, it is clear that pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 06.08.2021, a decision was taken by the respondent No.4/District Basic Education Officer, Meerut on 08.03.2022 by which a direction was given to make payment of regular salary to the petitioners with effect from 30.01.1996 but without providing any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, by way of review, another order was passed by him on 20.09.2022 by which the direction given to make payment of regular salary from 30.01.1996 was recalled and a direction was given to make payment of salary to the petitioners from the date of their regularization.

9. Since the order dated 20.09.2022 was passed by way of correction but nothing has been brought on record by learned counsel for respondent No.4 that under which provision of law, the correction has been made by the respondent No.4 in its order dated 08.03.2022. Apart from the same, before passing the order dated

20.09.2022, no notice or opportunity of hearing whatsoever has been provided to the petitioners.

10. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that order dated

20.09.2022 passed by the respondent No.4/District Basic Education Officer, Meerut is without jurisdiction, hence the same is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside.

11. The respondent No.4/District Basic Education Officer, Meerut is directed to pass fresh order taking into consideration the law laid down by this Court in some of the cases as quoted above most expeditiously and preferably within a period of six weeks from today.

12. It is made clear that the order dated 08.03.2022 passed by the respondent No.4 will not come in the way of respondent No.4 for taking fresh decision in the matter.

13. Sri Devesh Vikram, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 is directed to inform regarding this order to the authorities within a period of ten days from today.

14. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is party allowed. Order Date :- 9.1.2025 saqlain SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad