Allahabad High Court
District Basic Education Officer vs Anil Kumar Srivastava And Ors. on 11 August, 2025
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46835-DB
Court No. - 1
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 345 of 2022
Appellant :- District Basic Education Officer
Respondent :- Anil Kumar Srivastava And Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Vindhya Washini Kumar,Shobhit Mohan Shukla,Uday Veer Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Ran Vijay Singh,Amrendra Nath Tripathi,Anand Dubey,C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
A N D
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 381 of 2022
Appellant :- District Basic Education Officer, Gonda
Respondent :- Vijay Kumar Maurya And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Vindhya Washini Kumar,Shobhit Mohan Shukla,Uday Veer Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Dubey,C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
A N D
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 382 of 2022
Appellant :- District Basic Education Officer, Gonda
Respondent :- Archana Sahu And Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Shobhit Mohan Shukla,Uday Veer Singh,Vindhya Washini Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Dubey,C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
A N D
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 383 of 2022
Appellant :- Distt. Basic Education Officer Gonda
Respondent :- Smt. Pammi Devi And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Vindhya Washini Kumar,Shobhit Mohan Shukla,Uday Veer Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Dubey,C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
A N D
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 384 of 2022
Appellant :- District Basic Education Officer Gonda
Respondent :- Ghanshyam Singh And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shobhit Mohan Shukla,Uday Veer Singh,Vindhya Washini Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Dubey,C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
A N D
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 396 of 2022
Appellant :- District Basic Education Officer , Gonda
Respondent :- Ambika Prasad Verma And Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Shobhit Mohan Shukla,Uday Veer Singh,Vindhya Washini Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Dubey,C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
A N D
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 397 of 2022
Appellant :- Distt. Basic Education Officer Gonda
Respondent :- Alimuddin Ansari And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shobhit Mohan Shukla,Uday Veer Singh,Vindhya Washini Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Dubey,C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
A N D
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 398 of 2022
Appellant :- District Basic Education Officer, Gonda
Respondent :- Satish Kumar Mishra And 4 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Vindhya Washini Kumar,Uday Veer Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Dubey,C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
A N D
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 399 of 2022
Appellant :- Distt. Basic Edu. Officer Gonda
Respondent :- Sarvajit Singh And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shobhit Mohan Shukla,Uday Veer Singh,Vindhya Washini Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Dubey,C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
A N D
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 400 of 2022
Appellant :- District Basic Education Officer Gonda
Respondent :- Saiyed Abdul Kari And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shobhit Mohan Shukla,Uday Veer Singh,Vindhya Washini Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Dubey,C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
A N D
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 422 of 2022
Appellant :- District Basic Education Officer Gonda
Respondent :- Ravi Kant Tripathi And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shobhit Mohan Shukla,Uday Veer Singh,Vindhya Washini Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Dubey,C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
A N D
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 423 of 2022
Appellant :- District Basic Education Officer, Gonda
Respondent :- Anand Prakash Srivastava And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Vindhya Washini Kumar,Shobhit Mohan Shukla,Uday Veer Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Dubey,C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
A N D
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 424 of 2022
Appellant :- Distt. Basic Education Officer Gonda
Respondent :- Kamal Srivastava And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shobhit Mohan Shukla,Uday Veer Singh,Vindhya Washini Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Dubey,C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
A N D
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 425 of 2022
Appellant :- District Basic Education Officer Gonda
Respondent :- Ashok Kumar Alias Kariya And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shobhit Mohan Shukla,Uday Veer Singh,Vindhya Washini Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Dubey,C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
A N D
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 426 of 2022
Appellant :- District Basic Education Officer And Another
Respondent :- Kali Prasad Shukla And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shobhit Mohan Shukla,Uday Veer Singh,Vindhya Washini Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- Umeshwar Pratap Pandey,C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
A N D
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 427 of 2022
Appellant :- District Basic Education Officer Gonda
Respondent :- Amrendra Pratap Singh And 5 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shobhit Mohan Shukla,Uday Veer Singh,Vindhya Washini Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- Pradeep Kumar Shukla,C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
A N D
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 428 of 2022
Appellant :- District Basic Edu. Officer
Respondent :- Brijesh Kumar Tiwari And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shobhit Mohan Shukla,Uday Veer Singh,Vindhya Washini Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Dubey,C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
A N D
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 429 of 2022
Appellant :- District Basic Education Officer , Gonda
Respondent :- Sushila Singh And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shobhit Mohan Shukla,Uday Veer Singh,Vindhya Washini Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Dubey,C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
A N D
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 430 of 2022
Appellant :- District Basic Education Officer, Gonda
Respondent :- Sunil Kumar Gupta And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shobhit Mohan Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Dubey,C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
A N D
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 431 of 2022
Appellant :- District Basic Education Officer Gonda
Respondent :- Mohd. Anwar And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shobhit Mohan Shukla,Uday Veer Singh,Vindhya Washini Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Dubey,C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
A N D
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 432 of 2022
Appellant :- District Basic Education Officer Gonda
Respondent :- Chint Mani Pandey And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shobhit Mohan Shukla,Uday Veer Singh,Vindhya Washini Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Dubey,C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
A N D
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 433 of 2022
Appellant :- Distt. Basic Edu. Officer Gonda
Respondent :- Anand Pratap Singh And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shobhit Mohan Shukla,Uday Veer Singh,Vindhya Washini Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
A N D
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 434 of 2022
Appellant :- District Basic Education Officer Gonda And Another
Respondent :- Awdhesh Pratap Singh And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shobhit Mohan Shukla,Uday Veer Singh,Vindhya Washini Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- Umeshwar Pratap Pandey,C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
A N D
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 435 of 2022
Appellant :- District Basic Education Officer Gonda
Respondent :- Serv Dev Shukla And 4 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shobhit Mohan Shukla,Uday Veer Singh,Vindhya Washini Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Dubey,C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
A N D
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 436 of 2022
Appellant :- District Basic Education Officer , Gonda
Respondent :- Brijesh Kumar Shukla And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shobhit Mohan Shukla,Uday Veer Singh,Vindhya Washini Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Dubey,C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
A N D
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 437 of 2022
Appellant :- District Basic Education Officer, Gonda
Respondent :- Alok Kumar And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shobhit Mohan Shukla,Uday Veer Singh,Vindhya Washini Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Dubey,C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
A N D
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 438 of 2022
Appellant :- Distt. Basic Edu. Officer Gonda And Another
Respondent :- Jay Prakash Tripathi And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shobhit Mohan Shukla,Uday Veer Singh,Vindhya Washini Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
(C. M. Application No. 9 of 2024)
There is an application on behalf of the State and its Authorities to exempt them from payment of Cost of Rs. 2100/- each to the respondents-petitioners which was imposed vide order dated 01.07.2024 on account of non filing of counter affidavit in spite of lapse of almost 2 years. We have perused the affidavit. The only explanation offered is that information was collected from all the Basic Education Officers but some of the Basic Education Officers failed to provide information whereupon letter dated 03.07.2024 was sent. We have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the said application. The opposite parties were directed to file counter affidavit in the matter vide order dated 18.08.2022. If about 23 months were not sufficient for the State to file a counter affidavit, then, we fail to understand as to how much time is required. In any case even if such letters were written and the information was called, this does not explain the delay of almost 2 years. We see no reason to recall our order dated 01.07.2024 or exempt the opposite parties from paying cost. The order remains as it is. The cost shall be paid to the respondents-petitioners within a period of one month from today.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and learned counsel for the private respondents-petitioners on the appeals.
By means of these special appeals the State has challenged the judgment and orders dated 25.06.2021, 29.11.2021 and 06.12.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 8908 (S/S) of 2017 and connected matters, Writ Petition No. 23917 (S/S) of 2021 and connected matters and Writ Petition No. 27918 (S/S) of 2021 and connected matters respectively.
By means of the aforesaid writ petitions the respondents-petitioners had sought the trained pay-scale w.e.f December, 1992 on the strength of Government Order dated 01.02.2000.
We may at this stage point out that the respondents-petitioners herein were appointed in 1987 on compassionate basis as untrained teachers. On 15.05.1997 a Government Order was issued providing that those compassionately appointed untrained teachers who had completed 5 years of uninterrupted service as on 30.04.1997 or who had only 2 years left for superannuation they would be granted exemption from training, meaning thereby, in view of this exemption they would be entitled to the trained pay-scale on completion of 5 years of service on 30.04.1997 or if only 2 years remained in their superannuation. It is not in dispute that the respondents-petitioners herein were granted said benefit under Government Order dated 15.05.1997 and the trained pay-scale was granted to them w.e.f. 30.04.1997 which they had been receiving.
It is only in 2017 and 2021 that respondents-petitioners filed writ petitions seeking the aforesaid relief on the strength of the Government Order dated 01.02.2000.
The learned Single Judge has opined that intent and language used in the Government Order dated 01.02.2000 is to give it retrospective and not prospective effect. So is the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents-petitioners. However, having gone through the said Government Order we beg to differ. In Para 1 of the Government Order dated 01.02.2000 reference has been made to the earlier arrangements brought about in respect of compassionate appointees- untrained teachers vide Government Order dated 15.05.1997 and 06.08.1999. It is not out of place to mention that appointments of Teachers on compassionate basis as untrained teachers is a continuous process, therefore, Government Orders have been issued from time to time to meet the situation. It has been categorically mentioned in Government Order dated 01.02.2000 that those covered by the said Government Orders dated 15.05.1997 etc. were exempted for training which obviously refers to a fact which has already happened as in the case of the respondents/petitioners who had already been given the benefit under the Government Order dated 15.05.1997 (Annexure No. 4). Then, in Para 2 of the Government Order dated 01.02.2000 it has been stated as under:-
"???? ?????? ??? ????? ???????????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ??????????? ???????/??????????? ?? ???????? ?? 5 ???? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ????????? ?? ???????? ????????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ????????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ????????? ????? ? ??? ?? ?? ?????? 5 ???? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ????????? ????????? ??????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????????? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ??? ???????? ????????? ?? ?? ????"
On a plain reading of Para 2 of the Government Order dated 01.02.200 what comes out is that the words '???? ??????' referred therein relates to the subject matter referred in the earlier Government Orders and then, Para 2 goes on to state that every effort shall be made that such untrained teachers are provided training within 5 years which is an eventuality which could not possibly exists in the case of the respondents-petitioners and similarly situated who had already been granted exemption under the earlier Government Order dated 15.05.1997, as, they had already been exempted, therefore, obviously it refers to a future eventuality. Thereafter, Para 2 goes on to state that however, if, for any unavoidable circumstances it is not possible to impart training to the aforesaid untrained teachers, then, they shall be granted the benefit of trained pay-scale on completion of 5 years of services and provision shall be made for their training immediately thereafter, meaning thereby, even after grant of trained pay-scale they would not be exempted from training, but, they would be immediately given training, whereas, the earlier Government Order was different on this count. Based on the language and intent as revealed from a reading of the Government Order dated 01.02.2000 we can not sustain the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge that the said Government Order is retrospective. There is nothing in it which could persuade us to concur with the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge. Even otherwise the Government Orders are not retrospective. If the respondents-petitioners completed 5 years of service as mentioned in Government Order dated 15.05.1997 prior to 30.04.1997, then, they have been given its benefit from the said date which does not mean that Government Order dated 01.02.2000 has been given retrospective effect as has been erroneously opined by learned Single Judge.
The assertion of Shri Anand Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents-petitioners that this is how the Government Order was understood by the District Authorities and benefit was granted to others, does not persuade us to give a meaning to the Government which it does not have. If any error or wrong has been committed by the Sub-ordinate Officers that can not be made a rule by this Court nor can parity be given with such errors. It is for the State to see as to how this was done, if required. Learned Single Judge has also erred on this count as he was persuaded to read the Government Order dated 01.02.2000, as he did, in view of the fact that some others were granted its benefit.
As the basis of the impugned judgment is the aforesaid misreading and mis-comprehension of the meaning and purport of the Government Order dated 01.02.2000, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment is liable to be set-aside. The respondents-petitioners already having got the benefit under the earlier Government Order dated 15.05.1997 could not have filed these writ petitions in 2017 seeking the trained pay-scale w.e.f. December, 1992.
At this stage, it is informed that the date of appointment of the respondents-petitioners in all the writ petitions which have been connected together is different. It varies from the year 1997 to 1992. However, this would not make much of difference, as, we have clarified the meaning and purport of the Government Order dated 01.02.2000 and its applicability, therefore, our judgment will apply accordingly.
For all the aforesaid reasons, we allow all the Special Appeals and quash the impugned judgment.
.
(Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)
Order Date :- 11.8.2025
R.K.P.
