Allahabad High Court
District Basic Education Office vs Arti Saxena And 4 Others on 27 May, 2024
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:96432-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
*****
(Sl. No. 3002)
Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 404 of 2022
Appellant :- District Basic Education Office
Respondent :- Arti Saxena And 4 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shyam Krishna Gupta
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhanshu Narain
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Sudhanshu Narain, learned counsel for petitioner-respondent no.1.
2. The instant intra-court appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 29.09.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ A No.1370/2021 (Arti Saxena vs. Director Basic Education U.P. and others).
3. It appears that the husband of the petitioner-respondent no.1 was appointed under Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 in the year 2000. He continued in service till his death after which an application was moved by the petitioner-respondent no.1 that the retiral dues to which the husband of the petitioner was entitled, should be paid to her, which has been rejected by the order dated 14.10.2020 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, District Moradabad on the ground that a complaint was made alleging that the appointment of petitioner's husband was contrary to the Government Orders as well as the Dying-in-Harness Rules 1974. Aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.2020, the petitioner-respondent no.1 had preferred Writ A No.1370/2021, which was allowed by learned Single Judge by the order impugned with observations to the following effect:-
"The ground for refusal as it appears from the impugned order is that one Akhtar Hussain Rizvi, Advocate, Resident of Warsi Gali No. 5, Jayarat Shah Bulaki Chakkar ki Milak, Civil Lines, Moradabad made a complaint that the appointment of the petitioner's husband under Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 made in the year 2000 was contrary to the Government Orders. It is revealed that an enquiry was conducted and, in the enquiry, it was found that as the appointment was made in the year 2000, the issue with regard to recall the appointment cannot be opened after such a long time as was revealed in the enquiry report dated 15.5.2018.
The facts reveal that the husband of the petitioner died on 27.4.2019 and during his life time no enquiry was concluded with regard to his appointment, the order is based upon ground that the appointment of the husband of the petitioner was irregular and contrary to the Government Orders as well as the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974.
I am afraid that no enquiry or finding could have been recorded after the death of employee who was alleged to have been irregularly appointed, thus, the whole basis for holding that the appointment of the husband of the petitioner was bad in law is not sustainable as the basis for passing the order dated 14.10.2000 is found to be unsustainable, the order dated 14.10.2000 is quashed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be paid all the benefits which were to be paid to the petitioner's husband after his death, in accordance with law. As the dues were to be paid with effect from 27.4.2019 (date of death of the husband of the petitioner), the District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad (respondent no. 4) is directed to pay the amount, as directed above, along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the day when the amounts became payable till actual payment within a period of three months, from the date of filing of the copy of this order before the respondent no. 4.
The petition is allowed in terms of the said direction.
Copy of the order downloaded from the website of Allahabad High Court shall be accepted/treated as certified copy of the order."
4. On the matter being taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent no.1 states that in response to the order impugned, the compliance is already ensured except the interest part. He submits that rightful order has been passed by the learned Single Judge and the petitioner has sanguine hope of success in the present appeal.
5. We have the occasion to peruse the record. Once it is claimed that the order dated 29.09.2021 is moreover complied with and only consideration qua interest is pending, at this stage we do not find it fit to accord any relief to the appellant. Even upon perusing the impugned judgment and order, we find that learned Single Judge has appreciated the record and material, as has been placed and the writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an Intra-Court Special Appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity. As such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.
6. In view of above, the special appeal sans merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.5.2024
Kirti
(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (M.C. Tripathi, J.)
