# Praveen Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 760
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-02
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 6719 of 2023
- **Bench:** Manjive Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/praveen-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50746
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

under the Dying in Harness Rules is to be
treated
as
a
regular
and
permanent
appointment
from
the
date
of
initial
appointment and cannot be on a consolidated
pay. The impugned order passed by the
District Basic Education Officer rejecting such
claim on the basis of Government Orders
dated 17.06.1996 and 30.01.1996 is contrary
to law laid down by this Court in several
binding precedents including Ravi Karan
Singh Vs St. of U.P., 1999 (3) UPLBEC
2263, Itwari Lal Vs St. of U.P., Writ
Petition No. 5112 (S/S) of 2014, and
others.

The Court reiterated that appointment under
Dying in Harness Rules is made to alleviate
financial hardship and hence must be construed
as a regular appointment from the date of entry
into
service.
Directions
issued
for
9 All. Praveen Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
761
reconsideration of the petitioner's claim in
accordance with law.

## Text

760 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proceedings initiated before the learned
Tribunal questioning the action of the
petitioners in not granting interest on
delayed payment of retiral dues by the
petitioners, in our opinion, was wholly
misconceived and was barred under the
principle of res judicata and in any case the
prayer sought by the employee in the
second round of litigation before the
learned Tribunal was not as per equity,
good conscience and fair play. Even the
learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate
the said finer point and granted a relief,
which ought not have been granted looking
to the finality of judgment/order dated
11.03.2016. In other words, the issue of
interest on the amount due after the earlier
judgment/order rendered on 11.03.2016
was no more open to be re-agitated to
unsettle a binding decision having attained
finality.

(29) So far as the second question
whether the learned Tribunal has power to
condone the delay in filing the review
application, is concerned, this Court has
recently decided this issue in Writ-A No.
5564 of 2023 : Surendra Kumar Vs. Union
of India and others, decided on 24.08.2023,
holding that the learned Tribunal has power
to condone the delay in filing the review
application. Therefore, the plea of the
respondent no.1/employee in this regard
has no substance.

E. CONCLUSION

(30) For the aforesaid reasons, we are
of the considered view that the impugned
judgments/orders passed by the learned
Tribunal are liable to be set-aside.

(31) In view of the aforesaid, the writ
petition
is
allowed.
The
impugned
judgment/order dated 14.10.2022 passed in
Original Application No. 332/00515/2018
and
the
impugned
judgment
dated
06.07.2023 passed in Review Application
No. 332/00004/2023 are hereby set-aside.

(32) There shall be no order as to
costs.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 760
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ-A No. 6719 of 2023

Praveen Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vibhu Rai, Sri Dhananjai Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Shad Khan, Sri Suresh Kumar

Held - Compassionate appointment made
under the Dying in Harness Rules is to be
treated
as
a
regular
and
permanent
appointment
from
the
date
of
initial
appointment and cannot be on a consolidated
pay. The impugned order passed by the
District Basic Education Officer rejecting such
claim on the basis of Government Orders
dated 17.06.1996 and 30.01.1996 is contrary
to law laid down by this Court in several
binding precedents including Ravi Karan
Singh Vs St. of U.P., 1999 (3) UPLBEC
2263, Itwari Lal Vs St. of U.P., Writ
Petition No. 5112 (S/S) of 2014, and
others.

The Court reiterated that appointment under
Dying in Harness Rules is made to alleviate
financial hardship and hence must be construed
as a regular appointment from the date of entry
into
service.
Directions
issued
for
9 All. Praveen Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
761
reconsideration of the petitioner's claim in
accordance with law.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manjive Shukla, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the Respondent No.1 as well
as Mr. Shad Khan, learned counsel
appearing for the Respondents No.2 and 3.

2. Petitioner, through the present writ
petition, has challenged the order dated
15.2.2023 passed by the District Basic
Education Officer, Kasganj, whereby case
of the petitioner for treating him to be
regularly appointed with effect from the
date of his initial appointment, has been
rejected. Petitioner through the present writ
petition has also prayed for a direction from
this
Court
thereby
commanding
the
respondents
to
treat
the
petitioner's
appointment to be a regular appointment
from the date of his initial appointment and
also to pay the consequential service
benefits to him.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that
the petitioner was initially appointed as
Class IV employee on a consolidated pay
of Rs.2550/- per month vide appointment
order dated 18.8.2004 passed by the
Deputy Basic Education Officer, Etah. The
petitioner, pursuant to his appointment
order dated 18.8.2004 started working on
his post and was paid consolidated salary.

4. Thereafter, vide order dated
8.12.2010 petitioner was granted regular
pay-scale of Rs.4440-7440/- with grade pay
of Rs.1300/- and since then he is receiving
salary in the regular pay scale.

5. Petitioner raised his claim before
the District Basic Education Officer,
Kasganj that his appointment may be
treated as regular appointment with effect
from the date of his initial appointment i.e.
18.8.2004 and he may be paid the
consequential
service
benefits.
Since
nothing was done by the District Basic
Education
Officer,
Kasganj,
as
such
petitioner filed Writ-A No.12808 of 2021
and this Court vide order dated 24.9.2021
disposed of the said writ petition with
direction to the District Basic Education
Officer, Kasganj to consider the petitioner's
claim for inclusion of his services rendered
between year 2004 to 2010 keeping in view
the judgment of this Court rendered in the
case of Ravi Karan Singh Vs. State of
U.P and others, reported in 1999 (3)
UPLBEC 2263.

6. The District Basic Education
Officer, Kasganj in compliance of the
aforesaid order dated 24.9.2021 passed in
Writ-A No.12808 of 2021, has passed an
order on 15.2.2023, whereby the claim of
the petitioner for treating his appointment
on Class IV post to be a regular
appointment with effect from the date of
his initial appointment, has been rejected.
The District Basic Education Officer,
Kasganj in his order dated 15.2.2023 has
recorded finding that petitioner was given
compassionate appointment on 18.8.2004
on consolidated pay and he has been
granted regular pay scale vide order dated
8.12.2010 with effect from the date of
passing of the said order and therefore,
petitioner is not entitled for treating his
appointment to be a regular appointment
with effect from the date of his initial
appointment. The District Basic Education
Officer, Kasganj in his order dated
15.2.2023 has further stated that Director,
Basic Education, U.P., Lucknow has issued
an order on 17.6.1996, whereby it has been
provided that those Class IV employees
762 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
who
were
given
compassionate
appointment on a consolidated pay, will be
entitled for regular pay-scale with effect
from the date of passing of the order for
payment of salary in regular pay-scale and
their appointments shall not be treated as
regular appointment in regular pay-scale
with effect from the date of initial
appointment.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has submitted that the issue
involved in this writ petition has already
been decided by this court vide its
judgment and order dated 18.8.2015 passed
in Writ Petition No.5112 (S/S) of 2014
(Itwari Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others)
and it has been held by this court that
compassionate appointment from the date
of initial appointment has to be treated a
regular appointment and the concerned
candidate is entitled for the payment of
salary in regular pay-scale from the date of
his initial appointment. It has been further
submitted that this court in the aforesaid
judgment and order dated 18.8.2015 passed
in Writ Petition No.5112 )S/S) of 2014 has
relied on the judgment passed by this court
in the case of Ravi Karan Singh Vs. State
of U.P and others, reported in 1999 (3)
UPLBEC 2263. Learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner has further submitted that
this Court in another judgment passed on
13.12.2019 in Writ-A No.6717 of 2018
(Pradeep Kumar and 6 others Vs. State
of U.P. and others) has decided the
identical issue, which is involved in the
present writ petition. Lastly, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner has
relied on the judgment of this court passed
on 23.9.2022 in Writ-A No.15205 of 2022
(Asif Khan vs. State of U.P. and others),
wherein an identical issue, which is
involved in the matter of the petitioner, has
been decided.

8. On the other hand, the learned
counsel appearing for the Respondents
No.2 and 3 has argued that petitioner's
initial appointment was made on a
consolidated pay and thereafter, vide order
dated 8.12.2010 he has been given
appointment
in
a
regular
pay-scale,
therefore petitioner is not entitled to his
appointment to be treated as a regular
appointment in a regular pay-scale with
effect from the date of his initial
appointment,
i.e.
with
effect
from
18.8.2004. Learned counsel appearing
for the Respondents No.2 and 3 has
further argued that the order dated
17.6.1996 issued by the Director, Basic
Education, U.P., Lucknow provides that
where the compassionate appointment
was given on a consolidated pay and
later on regular pay scale has been
granted, the candidate will be entitled
for payment of regular salary with effect
from the date when the order for
payment of salary in a regular pay-scale
has
been
passed
and
further,
appointment of the said candidate cannot
be treated to be regular with effect from
the date of his initial appointment.

9. I have considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsels appearing for
the parties.

10. I find that this court has already
decided the issue involved in the present
writ petition and it has been held by this
court
that
compassionate
appointment
cannot be on a consolidated pay and it has
to be a regular appointment in a regular
pay-scale, therefore even if a person is
appointed on compassionate ground on a
consolidated pay, the said appointment will
be treated to be a regular appointment in a
regular pay-scale with effect from the date
of his initial appointment.
9 All. Praveen Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
763

11. This court vide its judgment
rendered in the case of Ravi Karan Singh
(supra) has held that appointment under
Dying in Harness Rules has to be treated as
a permanent appointment. The relevant
portion of the aforesaid judgment passed by
this Court is extracted as under:-

"This petition has come up before
us on a reference made by the learned
Single
Judge
by
his
order
dated
19.12.1997. The point involved is very
simple, that is, whether an appointment
under the Dying in Harness Rules is a
permanent
appointment
or
temporary
appointment. According to the learned
Single Judge, this Court had earlier held
that an appointment under Dying in
Harness Rules is a permanent appoint vide
Budhi Sagar Dubey v. D.O.I.S., (1993) 1
UPLBEC 197; Gulab Yadav v. State of
U.P. and others, (1991) 2 UPLBEC 995
and Dhirendra Pratap Singh v. D.I.O.S. &
Others. (1991) 1 UPLBEC 427. The
learned Single Judge who passed the
referring order dated 19.12.1997 disagreed
with the above mentioned decisions and
hence has referred the matter to a larger
Bench.

In our opinion, an appointment
under the Dying in Harness Rules has to be
treated as a permanent appointment
otherwise if such appointment is treated to
be a temporary appointment then it will
follow that soon after the appointment the
service can be terminated and this will
nullify the very purpose of the Dying in
Harness Rule because such appointment is
intended to provide immediate relief to the
family on the sudden death of the breadearner. We, therefore, hold that the
appointment under Dying in Harness Rule
is a permanent appointment and not a
temporary appointment and hence the
provisions of U.P. Temporary Government
Servant (Termination of Services) Rules,
1975 will not apply to such appointments.

The petition
is
disposed
of
accordingly."

12. This court has again decided the
case of Itwari Lal (supra) vide judgment
and order dated 18.8.2015, wherein it has
been categorically held that order dated
30.1.1996 passed by U.P. Basic Education
Board, Allahabad is not applicable in the
case
of
compassionate
appointment,
whereas in the present matter, case of the
petitioner has been rejected relying upon
the aforesaid order dated 30.1.1996. The
relevant portion of the judgment and order
dated 18.8.2015 is extracted as under:-

"The sole basis of passing of the
impugned
order
dated
4.9.2014
is
Government Order dated 30.1.1996 issued
by Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha
Parishad, Allahabad. The relevant portion
of the said is quoted as under:-

"मृति आकितों िी चतुर्ग िेणी िे पदों पर कनयुकक्त
िे सम्बन्ध में नवीनतम शासनादेश संख्या-४८०/१५-५-९०-३०८२ कदनांि २३ माचग १९९० िे पैरा-६ में कनम्नवत प्रावधान किया
गया है ।

"शासनादेश संख्या-२१३७/१५ -५-८१ -४४८/७६
कदनाि २० जनवरी १९८२ िे अंतगगत चतुर्ग िेणी िे फालतू
िमगचाररयों िे समायोजन हेतु नई कनयुकक्तयां न किये जाने िा
प्रकतबन्ध मृति आकितों िी चतुर्ग िेणी िे कनयुकक्त में लागू न
होगा ।"

उक्त िे आलोि में जनपद स्तर पर इिाईवार
आवंकित चतुर्ग िेणी िे पदों िो सुकनकित िरने िे उपरांत सीधी
िती से । किसी प्रिार िी िोई कनयुकक्त न िरने िा कनदेश प्रसाररत
िर दें और मृति आकितों िी चतुर्ग िेणी िे कलए आवंकित ररक्त
पदों िे प्रकत ज्येष्ट्ता क्रम में सम्बंकधत इिाई िे कनयुकक्त प्राकधिारी
764 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(कशिा अधीिि/उप कवद्यालय कनरीिि प्रर्म) द्वारा कनयमानुसार
कनयुकक्तयां िी जा सिती है |"

The Government Order dated
30.1.1996 is not applicable in case of the
persons
who
were
appointed
on
compassionate ground under Dying in
Harness Rules, so the action on the part of
opposite party no.3 thereby rejecting the
claim of the petitioner vide order dated
4.9.2014 in view of Government Order
dated 30.1.1996 is void ab initio and
without jurisdiction as well as on the
ground that compassionate appointment
cannot be given on consolidated salary
because the same is of permanent nature as
held by by a Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Ravi Karan Singh ( supra).

x x x x x x x x x x x x

So keeping in view of the said fact
as well as the law laid down a Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Ravi
Karan Singh ( supra), the impugned order
passed by opposite party no.3 liable to be
set aside.

For the foregoing reasons, the
writ petition is allowed and the impugned
order dated 4.9.2014 passed by opposite
party no.3/ District Basic Education
Officer, Sitapur is set aside. The opposite
party no.3 is directed to re-examine the
matter
afresh
in
the
light
of
the
observations
made
herein
above,
expeditiously, say within a period of eight
weeks from the date a certified copy of this
order is produced before him."

13. This court has also decided WritA No.6717 of 2018 (Pradeep Kumar and 6
others Vs. State of U.P. and others) vide
judgment and order dated 13.12.2019. The
relevant portion of the judgment and order
dated 13.12.2019 is extracted as under:-

"In support of his submission,
Shri Rai has placed reliance on the
judgement passed by the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Ravi Karan Singh
vs. State of U.P. 1999 (2) AWC 976,
wherein, similar issue has been considered
and relying on the judgement passed in
Budhi Sagar Dubey vs. D.I.O.S. 1993 ESC
21; Gulab Yadav vs. State of U.P. and
others 1991 (2) UPLBEC 995; and
Dhirendra Pratap Singh vs. D.I.O.S. and
others 1991 (1) UPLBEC 427, it has been
held that the appointment under the Dyingin-Harness Rules has to be treated as a
permanent appointment otherwise if such
appointment is treated to be a temporary
appointment, then it will follow that soon
after the appointment, the service can be
terminated and this will nullify the purpose
of Dying-in-Harness Rules because such
appointment
is
intended
to
provide
immediate relief to the family on the sudden
death of the bread earner. Reliance has
also been placed on the judgement and
order dated 18.08.2015 passed in Service
Single no.5112 of 2014 (Itwari Lal vs. State
of U.P. through Secy. Basic Shiksha Lko
and others), wherein, after placing reliance
on the case of Ravi Karan Singh (supra),
the writ petition was allowed and the order
impugned was set aside. Further direction
has been issued to the opposite party no.3
to re-examine the matter afresh in the light
of observations made therein within the
stipulated period. He has also relied upon
the judgement passed in the case of
Ravindra Nath Taigor and others vs. State
of U.P. and others 2018 (3) ADJ 1641,
wherein, it has been observed that the
petitioners, who were appointed under
Dying-in-Harness Rules in the year 2005
are entitled to be treated at par with all
9 All. Praveen Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
765
other
similarly
appointed
permanent
assistant teachers in basic school, for the
purpose of their pension and provident
fund
benefits
and
accordingly,
the
Government Order dated 15.11.2011 has
been quashed.

The legal and factual position has
not been disputed by learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel but at the same
time, he contends that initial appointment
of the petitioners were on consolidated
basis and thereafter they have been
regularized on the post and the admissible
benefits have been provided to them as
such, at this belated stage, this Court
should not at all intervene in the matter.

In the present case, nothing has
been brought on record to indicate or
suggest that the posts on which the
petitioners have been appointed were not
substantively vacant. The law on the issue
is settled that appointment under Dying-inHarness Rules can only be extended
against a substantive vacancy and in case
there is no vacancy, supernumerary post
would be created for such purpose.

In the facts and circumstances of
the case and in the light of the observations
so made in the case of Ravi Karan Singh
(supra), Itwari Lal (supra) as well as
Ravindra Nath Taigor (supra), the issue is
no more res-integra and as such, the Court
is of the considered opinion that the
services rendered by the petitioners on
consolidated salary should be counted as
regular service and accordingly, the
consequential benefits may also follow."

14. This court recently has considered
the identical issue which is involved in the
present writ petition and has decided WritA No.15205 of 2022 (Asif Khan vs. State
of U.P. and others) vide judgment and
order dated 23.9.2022. The relevant portion
of judgment and order dated 23.9.2022 is
extracted as under:-

"The sole basis of passing of the
impugned
order
dated
2.9.2022
is
Government Order dated 30.1.1996 issued
by Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha
Parishad, Allahabad. The relevant portion
of the said is quoted as under:-

"मृति आकितों िी चतुर्ग िेणी िे पदों पर कनयुकक्त
िे सम्बन्ध में नवीनतम शासनादेश संख्या-४८०/१५-५-९०-३-८२
कदनांि २३ माचग १९९० िे पारा ६ में कनम्नवत प्रावधान किया गया
है

" शासनादेश संख्या-२१३७/१५/५/८९-४४८/७६
कदनांि २० जनवरी १९८२ िे अंतगगत चतुर्ग िेणी िे फालतू
िमगचाररयों िे समायोजन हेतु नयी कनयुकक्तयां न किये जाने िा
प्रकतबन्ध मृति आकितों िी चतुर्ग िेणी िे कनयुकक्त में लागू न
होगा"

उक्त िे आलोि में जनपद स्तर पर इिाईवार
आबंकित चतुर्ग िेणी िे पदों िो सुकनकित िरने िे उपरांत सीढ़ी
िती से किसी प्रिार िी िोई कनयुकक्त न िरने िा कनदेश प्रसाररत
िर दें और मृति आकितों िी चतुर्ग िेणी िे कलए आबंकित ररक्त
पदों िे प्रकत ज्येष्ठता क्रम में सम्बंकधत इिाई िे कनयुकक्त प्राकधिारी
(कशिा अधीिि/उप कवद्यालय कनरीिि प्रर्म) द्वारा कनयमानुसार
कनयुकक्तयां िी जा सिती है "

The Government Order dated
30.1.1996 is not applicable to case of the
persons
who
were
appointed
on
compassionate ground under Dying in
Harness Rules, so the action on the part of
opposite party no.3 whereby rejecting the
claim of the petitioner vide order dated
4.9.2014 in view of Government Order
dated 30.1.1996 is void ab initio and
without
jurisdiction.
Compassionate
appointment
cannot
be
given
on
consolidated salary as the same is of
permanent nature as held by by a Division
766 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Bench of this Court in the case of Ravi
Karan Singh ( supra) which is quoted
herein below:-

"This petition has come up before
us on a reference made by the learned
Single
Judge
by
his
order
dated
19.12.1997. The point involved is very
simple, that is, whether an appointment
under the Dying in Harness Rules is a
permanent
appointment
or
temporary
appointment. According to the learned
Single Judge, this Court had earlier held
that an appointment under Dying in
Harness Rules is a permanent appoint vide
Budhi Sagar Dubey v. D.O.I.S., (1993) 1
UPLBEC 197; Gulab Yadav v. State of
U.P. and others, (1991) 2 UPLBEC 995
and Dhirendra Pratap Singh v. D.I.O.S. &
Others. (1991) 1 UPLBEC 427. The
learned Single Judge who passed the
referring order dated 19.12.1997 disagreed
with the above mentioned decisions and
hence has referred the matter to a larger
Bench.

In our opinion, an appointment
under the Dying in Harness Rules has to be
treated as a permanent appointment
otherwise if such appointment is treated to
be a temporary appointment then it will
follow that soon after the appointment the
service can be terminated and this will
nullify the very purpose of the Dying in
Harness Rule because such appointment
is intended to provide immediate relief to
the family on the sudden death of the
bread-earner. We, therefore, hold that the
appointment under Dying in Harness
Rule is a permanent appointment and not
a temporary appointment and hence the
provisions
of
U.P.
Temporary
Government Servant (Termination of
Services) Rules, 1975 will not apply to
such appointments.

The petition
is
disposed
of
accordingly."

In view of the admitted facts as
attracted to the case of the petitioner as
well as the law laid down by the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Ravi
Karan Singh (supra), the impugned order
passed by respondent No. 3 cannot be
sustained and is liable to be set aside."

15. The appointment under Dying in
Harness Rules is always given to the
dependent of the deceased government
servant to overcome the instant financial
crisis suffered by the family due to demise
of the government servant and therefore,
the said appointment cannot be temporary
in nature. The compassionate appointment
has necessarily to be permanent as if the
said appointment is made temporarily,
there will be a threat to the family that any
time the said appointment can be cancelled
or services can be terminated, therefore, the
family of the deceased government servant
will never be in peace.

16. This court in the aforesaid
judgments
has
considered
the
issue
involved in this writ petition in detail and it
has been held that the compassionate
appointment can never be on a consolidated
pay and it is always a permanent
appointment in a regular pay-scale.

17. The petitioner before this court
was appointed on a consolidated pay on
18.8.2004 and later on he has been given
appointment in a regular pay-scale with
effect from 8.12.2010, therefore in view of
the aforementioned judgments of this court,
appointment of the petitioner has to be
treated permanent in a regular pay-scale
with effect from the date of his initial
appointment
i.e.
with
effect
from
9 All. Sheshmani Chaubey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
767
18.8.2004. This court vide order dated
24.9.2021 passed in Writ-A No.12808 of
2021 (Praveen Kumar vs. State of U.P. and
others)
directed
the
District
Basic
Education Officer, Kasganj to consider the
petitioner's claim in the light of the
judgment of this court rendered in the case
of Ravi Karan Singh (supra), but District
Basic Education Officer, Kasganj without
considering the judgment of this court
passed in the case of Ravi Karan Singh
(supra)
has
passed
the
order
dated
15.2.2023, whereby claim of the petitioner
for treating his appointment to be a regular
appointment in a regular pay-scale with
effect from 18.8.2004, has been rejected.
The District Basic Education Officer,
Kasganj in his order dated 15.2.2023 has
relied upon order dated 30.1.1996 issued by
the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board,
Allahabad and thereby has rejected the
claim of the petitioner.

18. The order dated 15.2.2023 passed
by the District Basic Education Officer,
Kasganj on its face is unsustainable in the
eyes of law as this court has already
decided the issue in question and has held
that compassionate appointment is to be
treated as a regular appointment in regular
pay scale from the date of initial
appointment and further this court vide
judgment and order dated 18.8.2015 passed
in the case of Itwari Lal (supra) has held
that order dated 30.1.1996 passed by the
Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board,
Allahabad is not applicable in the matters
of the compassionate appointment.

19. In view of the aforesaid reasons,
this writ petition is allowed. The order
dated 15.2.2023 passed by the District
Basic Education Officer, Kasganj, is
quashed. Respondent No.3 is directed to reexamine the matter afresh in the light of
observations made hereinabove and to pass
fresh order, expeditiously preferably within
a period of two months from the date of
service of certified copy of this order.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 767
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ-A No. 7547 of 2020

Sheshmani Chaubey ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shri Prakash Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Held - Date of birth once duly recorded in
service book at the time of appointment cannot
be altered on the basis of third-party complaint
unless substantiated by high school certificate
as
per
U.P.
Recruitment
to
Services
(Determination of Date of Birth) Rules, 1974 -
No application ever filed by employee for
correction - Proceedings initiated solely on
complaint of son of employee without employer
finding fraud at time of entry into service -
Enquiry reports based on old, shabby school
register with overwriting - Adhar Card and
Driving
License
disbelieved
without
authentication
from
issuing
authority
-
Retrospective
retirement
directed
without
amending
service
book
entry
-
Action
unsustainable in law - Malicious third-party
complaints must be discouraged - Employee
entitled to reinstatement and all consequential
benefits.

Case Law Discussed:

U.P. Recruitment to Services (Determination of
Date of Birth) Rules, 1974