Allahabad High Court
District Basic Education Officer ... vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 22 May, 2024
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:93157-DB
Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 524 of 2024
Appellant :- District Basic Education Officer Jaunpur Dr Gorakh Nath Patel
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Tej Bhan Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Kumar Singh,C.S.C.,Rajesh Kumar Chitragupt,Sarita Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the parties.
2. Present special appeal has been preferred assailing the validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 12.04.2024 in Writ-A No.20751 of 2018 (Abdul Bari Khan v. State of U.P. & Ors.), whereby, the writ petition was allowed and mandamus was issued to the respondent concerned to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith with all consequential benefits, however, cost of Rs.10,000/- was imposed upon the respondent no.2-appellant to be paid to the petitioner. For ready reference, the relevant portion of order dated 12.04.2024 is reproduced as under:-
"On perusal of the aforesaid clauses, it is clear that while granting compassionate appointment, the normal procedure and Rules are being relaxed. Further, the minimum age limit has been prescribed in clause 3(10). The impugned order has been passed holding that the petitioner, on the date of his appointment, has already attained the age of 42 years & 6 months, losing sight of the fact that while granting compassionate appointment, normal procedure, rules & regulations are being relaxed and there is no specific bar for appointing at the age of 42 years & 6 months in the Government Order; whereas, only minimum age has been prescribed and therefore, on this count, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Further, it is correct that the parents of the petitioner were in Government service, but the fact remains that after the death of the mother of the petitioner, the petitioner has claimed for compassionate appointment, when his father had already died before the death of his mother. This fact has not been disputed in the impugned order. Once the father, being a Government employee, was not alive and the petitioner has not claimed any appointment on the death of his father, rather, he moved an application after the death of his mother in harness, the impugned order cannot be sustained on this ground alone.
In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 31.08.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same is hereby quashed.
A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent concerned to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith with all consequential benefits.
The writ petition succeeds and is allowed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-, which shall be paid by the respondent no. 2 to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The authority concerned will be at liberty to recover the amount of cost from the erring official.
The respondent no. 2 shall file an affidavit of compliance with regard to payment of cost within a period of 45 days from today. Thereafter, the matter shall be listed in Chamber for compliance."
3. After hearing the parties at length, once the Court has indicated its mind in negative, learned counsel for the applicant has confined his prayer that at present the appellant is aggrieved by the imposition of cost upon the appellant while passing the order impugned, which is unwarranted and as such, this Court may waive of the cost.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the cost may be waived of as the learned Single Judge after appreciating the record and material, with cogent and justifiable reasons, has already considered the plight of the petitioner and set aside the order dated 31.08.2018 and also directed the Authorities to reinstate the petitioner-respondent in service and accord consequential benefits, which is sufficient for dispensation of justice and there is no need to impose cost upon the appellant. The cost is accordingly waived off. There is no need to make any interference in the remaining part of the judgement and the same is accordingly upheld.
5. With these observations, the special appeal is disposed of.
Order Date :- 22.5.2024
A. Pandey
