Allahabad High Court
Prashant Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 27 February, 2023
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1686 of 2023
Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nagendra Bahadur Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri G.C. Verma, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5 who has filed a short counter affidavit today in Court, which is taken on record.
Present petition has been filed claiming that the father of the petitioner, who was employed with the respondent, died while in harness on 08.09.2021. It bears from record that father of the petitioner was suspended by the Committee of Management on account of certain charges, however, the said suspension order was disapproved by respondent no.3 on 25.01.2020. It further bears that the order dated 25.01.2020 was challenged by respondent no.5 in Writ Petition No.4482 (SS) of 2020 wherein the said order was set aside and directions were issued to pass fresh orders with regard to approval to the suspension of the father.
It is stated that subsequent to the disposal of Writ Petition No.4482 (SS) of 2020, a fresh order of approval to the suspension of the father was passed on 02.03.2020. It is stated that subsequently respondent no.5 passed a proposal seeking dismissal of the father of the petitioner and the said proposal was forwarded to the U.P. Secondary Education (Services Selection Board) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1982') for approval under Section 21.
It is stated that Section 21 of the Act of 1982 prohibits passing of any order of removal without any prior approval. It is stated that when the matter was pending before the Court for approval, the father of the petitioner died and thus, no approval could be granted. It is further argued that once the father of the petitioner died while in service, the petitioner was entitled for consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds in view of the provisions as contained in Regulations 103 to 107 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, which provide for appointment on compassionate grounds.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that in terms of the Regulation 103, a member of the family of deceased, who is not less than 18 years of age, can be appointed on the post of teacher subject to his possessing the prescribed requisite academic qualifications claiming eligibility and otherwise fit for appointment.
In the light of the said provision, the petitioner applied for appointment, however, nothing has been done, as such, the present petition has been filed.
Shri G.C. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent has filed a short counter affidavit highlighting that the wife of the petitioner is working as an Assistant Teacher and is drawing salary. It is further argued that in view of the fact that wife of the petitioner is working, there is no financial exigency faced by the family which is a sine qua non for being considered for compassionate appointment.
He places reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. & Ors.; (2009) 6 SCC 481 wherein the following has been held:
"11. The very concept of giving a compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial difficulties that are faced by the family of the deceased due to the death of the earning member of the family. There is immediate loss of earning for which the family suffers financial hardship. The benefit is given so that the family can tide over such financial constraints.
12. The request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in government service.,In the light of the said, learned counsel for the respondent argues that the petitioner has been unsuccessful in highlighting any financial difficulties faced by the family of the deceased."
In the light of the said submission, this Court is to decide as to whether the petitioner can be considered for appointment under Chapter III of Regulations framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act?
On perusal of the said regulations - from Regulations 103 to 107 - it is apparent that an appointment under dying in harness rules can be claimed on account of death of a teacher who is working and any such claim has to be considered and decided by a committee constituted and comprising of Inspector, Accounts Officer in the DIOS office and the District Basic Education Officer.
Considering the fact that the father of the petitioner was appointed and was working as a teacher prior to his death and there is no order of dismissal passed against him while he was in service, the petitioner is clearly eligible for consideration of his appointment in terms of the mandate of Regulation 105 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed.
With regard to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme as cited above, the same was passed while interpreting the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, which are distinct in terms of its eligibility from the rules under which the petitioner is claiming appointment, as such, the said judgment would be of no avail.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that second suspension order passed against the father of the petitioner was also subject to the approval of the Board. However, I am not going into the said question as the appointment is to be considered and granted based upon the working of the father of the petitioner who was working and was not dismissed and as such, the petitioner is entitled for consideration of appointment.
Considering that prima-facie entitlement of the petitioner for consideration for compassionate appointment is made out in terms of the Regulation 103 to 105 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed, the present petition is disposed off directing respondent no.3 to place the papers of the petitioner before the Committee constituted under Rule 105. The Committee shall thereafter consider the case of the petitioner and shall pass orders thereupon in accordance with law within a period of two months.
While doing so, the Committee shall consider all the materials that are available before them.
This order has been passed in the presence of Shri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.6.
Order Date :- 27.2.2023
nishant
