Amar Singh Bisen vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 7070 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Amar Singh Bisen vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 21 May, 2025

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


2025:AHC:85084
 
Reserved :- 13/05/2025
 
Delivered :- 21/05/2025
 
Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1852 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Amar Singh Bisen
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Dubey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dhirendra Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Gopal Ji Rai, advocate holding brief of Sri Pramod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri A.K. Nagvanshi, learned Additional C.S.C.

2. Petitioner has claimed that his father was appointed on 28.08.1996 as Assistant Teacher in pursuance of an advertisement issued on 04.08.1996 after facing selection committee on 20.08.1996 in presence of nominee of BSA concerned which was approved by Committee of Management on 21.08.1996 and after that his appointment was approved by B.S.A. concerned on 27.08.1996.

3. It is further case of petitioner that his father got salary till 1999, however, thereafter matter was remained pending since there were objections regarding appointment of teachers when school was accorded grant-in-aid and their names were required to be approved for payment of salary from State Exchequer.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has referred documents annexed along with this writ petition that when claim of father of petitioner and others were again rejected on 09.05.2003, a writ petition was filed by them being Writ A No. 47856/2003 which was disposed of vide order dated 10.05.2012 that inquiry report be provided to father of petitioner and others. Thereafter, a 3 Members' Committee was constituted and report dated 08.04.2015 was submitted that since pages no. 41 to 42 were missing in Dispatch Register, therefore, claim was rejected. Before it, unfortunately petitioner died on 28.05.2012.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that in above circumstances, other persons have filed another writ being Writ A No. 17766/2016 wherein an order dated 21.04.2016 was passed. The petitioner being minor and his mother being illiterate were not able to pursue case of father of petitioner and have not challenged order dated 08.04.2015.

6. Learned counsel also submitted that in pursuance of order dated 21.04.2016, District Basic Education Officer has passed an order dated 24.05.2016 wherein it was directed that other teachers be granted salary and relevant part thereof is quoted below :-

"मा० उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद में योजित रिट याचिका सं० ४७८५६/ २००३ में पारित आदेश दिनांक १५. ०५. २०१२ एवं रिट याचिका सं० १७७६६/ २०१५ में मा० उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद के पारित आदेश दिनांक २१. ०४. २०१६ की सर्टिफाइड कॉपी व वादीगणों के प्रत्यावेदन दिनांक ०३. ०५. २०१६ को प्राप्त हो जाने के उपरांत प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में दिनांक १३. ०५. २०१६ को सुनवाई के उपरांत प्रधानाध्यापक प्रबंधक एवं वादीगणों द्वारा उपलब्ध कराये गए साक्ष्य सहित अभिकथन तथा कार्यालय में उपलब्ध अभिलेखों एवं सत्यापन समिति द्वारा प्राप्त करायी गयी सत्यापन आख्या के परिशीलनोपरान्त पाया गया कि दिनांक 22.05.1986 से 30.05.1986 पेज संख्या- 41 एवं 42 डिस्पैच पंजिका से गायब है। जिसमें डिस्पैच संख्या 693 से 779 तक अंकित किया गया है, तथा उसी अवरोही क्रम में डा० राम मनोहर लोहिया लघु माध्यमिक विद्यालय अवधनगर गजरही, महराजगंज के पक्ष में निर्गत पदसृजन का पत्रांक 720-22/1986-87/ दिनांक 22.05.1986 अंकित है, जिसके आधार पर उपरोक्त पत्रांक 720-22/1986-87 दिनांक 22.05.1986 का अंकन अभिलेख में होने की पुष्टि होती है, एवं वादीगणों की नियुक्ति से संबंधित विज्ञापन की अऩुमति, पर्यवेक्षक नामित करने संबंध पत्र व अनुमोदन आदि के संबंध में जो पत्र निर्गत किये गये है, वह उस शिविर डिस्पैच पंजिका में अंकित है, जिस शिविर डिस्पैच पंजिका के गायब होने की पुष्टि होने पर मा० उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद द्वारा याचिका सं० 54719/2006 में सुनवाई के दौरान होने पर तत्कालीन दो जिला बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी व तत्कालीन शिविर सहायक श्री राजेन्द्र लाल श्रीवास्तव व वरिष्ठ लिपिक श्री प्रेम चन्द्र गुप्त के विरूद्ध प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट कोतवाली महराजगंज में दर्ज कराने का आदेश दिया गया था, इस प्रकार पदसृजन, विज्ञापन, पर्यवेक्षक एवं अनुमोदन के उपरान्त प्रबन्धक द्वारा निर्गत नियुक्ति पत्र के फलस्वरूप वास्तविक कार्यभार ग्रहण करने की तिथि से जनवरी, 1999 तक तत्कालीन जिला बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी तथा वित्त एवं लेखाधिकारी, बेसिक शिक्षा, महाराजगंज द्वारा किये गये वेतन भुगतान का नियमानुकूल होने के आधार पर वादीगणों के वेतन का भुगतान वित्त एवं लेखाधिकारी, बेसिक शिक्षा, महराजगंज द्वारा किये जाने का आदेश पारित करते हुए वादीगणों के प्राप्त कराये गये प्रत्यावेदन दिनांक 03.05.2016 का निस्तारण मा० उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद के आदेश दिनांक 21.04.2016 के अऩुपालन में एतद् द्वारा प्रश्नगत प्रकरण निस्तारित किया जाता है।"

7. Learned counsel further submitted that since case of similar situated teachers as petitioner's father were allowed but since petitioner's father died in 2012, his case was not considered.

8. Learned counsel further submitted that when petitioner became major, he has filed an application for compassionate appointment on 26.07.2016 and when it was not decided, petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing Writ A No. 51933/2016 which was disposed of vide order dated 16.12.2016 with a direction to consider case of petitioner.

9. However, when his application was not considered and order dated 16.12.2016 passed by this Court was not complied with, the petitioner approached this Court again by filing Writ A No. 11229/2019 which was disposed of vide order dated 25.07.2019 with a direction to consider fresh application for compassionate appointment.

10. In aforesaid circumstances, impugned order dated 19.06.2020 was passed that since appointment of petitioner's father was found irregular and beyond strength, therefore, claim was rejected.

11. Learned counsel submitted that in the impugned order, earlier order passed by this Court on 21.04.2016 and consequential order dated 24.05.2016 passed by concerned respondent was completely ignored wherein claim of similarly situated persons as petitioner's father was accepted, however, since he has expired in the year 2012, therefore, his claim was not finalized.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents has submitted that petitioner remained lethargic as he has not taken any step after his father's death and he has never tried to claim petitioner's salary or benefit of his service and without any order to give salary to petitioner's father, he has filed application for compassionate appointment.

13. I have considered above submissions and perused the records.

14. It is well settled in case petitioner wants compassionate appointment on claiming his father dying in harness, it has to be proved that his father was in regular service and was paid salary, however, in present case, as referred above, petitioner's father died in the year 2012 and subsequent order dated 08.04.2015 being against him also was remained unchallenged qua to petitioner's father, therefore, benefit of subsequent judgment of this Court and order dated 24.05.2016 could not be granted.

15. Petitioner and her mother remained silent and have never tried to challenge order dated 08.04.2015, therefore, in absence of any specific order for payment of salary to petitioner's father or his services were found to be regular, it cannot be considered that petitioner's father has died in harness.

16. In aforesaid circumstances, very basis of filing application for compassionate appointment is not available, therefore, said claim on behalf of petitioner does not survive.

17. In view of above, writ petition lacks merit, hence, dismissed.

Order Date :- May 21, 2025

Sinha-N.

[Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.]