Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9808 of 2009 Petitioner :- Kunwar Awadhesh Pratap Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Mahendr Singh,S.C.Dwivedi Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Heard Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The application made by the petitioner for compassionate
appointment on the allegation that his father, namely, Shobha Ram
Premi expired during harness while working as Assistant Teacher in
Raj Kumar Janta Junior High School, Dhanayan, District Muzaffar
Nagar, stands rejected under decision/resolution of the Regional Level
Committee (Basic) dated 21st May, 2008 as communicated to the
petitioner under letter dated 7th October, 2008. A copy whereof has
been enclosed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit filed in support of
amendment application. The order records that the father of the
petitioner was employed in Raj Kumar Janta Junior High School with
the approval of the District Basic Education Officer dated 30th
December, 1986. He expired during harness on 18th December, 2002
upto that date the institution was not on the grant-in-aid list of the
State Government and was only a private unaided recognized junior
high school. It has been further recorded that the institution has been
taken on grant-in-aid on 1st December, 2006. Consequently, the
father of the petitioner expired during harness while working as
Assistant Teacher in unaided recognized junior high school to whom
provisions of compassionate appointment will not apply.
Petitioner has approached this Court for a writ of mandamus
commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner under Dying-in-
Harness Rules, 1974 and for the purpose, he has placed reliance
upon the decision of the Regional Level Committee (Basic) which
recommended the appointment of the petitioner as untrained teacher
in the institution on compassionate ground. Reliance was also placed
upon the Government Order dated 22nd July, 2000 as well as upon
the letter of the Special Secretary dated 28th March, 2008. The Writ
2
Court on 24th February, 2009 required the learned Standing Counsel to file
counter affidavit.
Amendment application has been filed on 13th August, 2009 and for the
first time the decision of the Regional Level Committee referred to above has
been brought on record as Annexure-6 to the affidavit filed in support of
amendment application. An amendment in the prayer clause has been asked
for quashing of the resolution/ decision of the Region Level Committee dated
21st May, 2008 as well as for quashing of the advertisement which has been
published for the post of Assistant Teacher in the institution in question.
Controversy with regard to the appointment on compassionate ground
in unaided recognized junior high school was subject matter of consideration
before this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17864 of 2010 (Vivek Kumar
Rai versus State of U.P. & others), which has been decided on 26th April,
2010 and after noticing the various Government Orders including the
Government Order dated 22nd July, 2000, wherein it has been held that a
dependent of teacher/employee working in unaided recognized junior high
school is not entitled for compassionate appointment in an aided institution.
Relevant portion of the judgement dated 26th April, 2010 is being quoted
herein below:
This Court after hearing the learned counsels for the parties and after
examining the Government Orders applicable is satisfied that there is no
anomaly in the three Government Orders dated 25th September, 1991, dated
31st January, 1997 and dated 22nd July, 2000, they categorically provide for
compassionate appointment being provided to defendants of employees, who
expire during harness while working in aided recognized institution only.
The latest Government Order dated 21st April, 2010 issued by the State
Government is only a camouflage to suggest that the Director was under a
bonafide doubt about the applicability of the Government Orders. The
Secretary in Paragraph-5 of his affidavit has admitted in simple words that on
reading of Government Orders dated 25th September, 1991, dated 31st
January, 1997 and dated 22nd July, 2000, compassionate appointment can be
offered to the dependent of employee working in an aided institution only, yet
he in the next para-6 refers to some imaginary anomaly and the issuance of
3
the corrigendum.
The Court may not leave the issue, on the stand, which is being taken
by the State alone, inasmuch as the Director is non-committally, while the
Secretary, even after taking a stand that the Government Orders provided for
compassionate appointment of dependent of employee working in an aided
institution only, has chosen to issue further clarification, which, in the opinion
of the Court, is superfluous and uncalled for. This Court shall, therefore,
examine as to what is the real intention of the Government Orders dated 25th
September, 1991, dated 31st January, 1997 and dated 22nd July, 2000.
Government Orders dated 25th September, 1991, dated 31st January,
1997 and dated 22nd July, 2000 have been brought on record along with
affidavit of the Director of Education (Basic).
Government Order dated 25th September, 1991, for the first time, made
provision for compassionate appointment of dependants of employees
expiring during harness, while working in recognized and aided junior high
schools. Relevant portion whereof reads as follows:
“eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ’k gqvk gS fd v’kkldh; lgk;rk izkIr iwoZ
ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa ds ‘kSf{kd@f’k{k.ksRrj deZpkfj;ksa dh lsokdky esa
vlkekf;d e`R;q dh n’kk esa muds ifjokj ds lnL;ksa dks lgk;rk&igqapkus dh
n`f”V ls] ifjokj ds fdlh ,d lnL; dks lsok esa fu;ksftr fd, tkus ds iz’u
ij ‘kklu }kjk fopkjksijkUr ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd ,sls ekeyksa esa] ftuesa
fdlh ,sls ‘kSf{kd vFkok f’k{k.ksRrj deZpkjh dk fuEu lsokjr n’kk esa
vlkekf;d :i ls gks x;k gks] tks vius in esa LFkk;h@fu;fer :i ls
fu;qDr jgk gks] mlds ifjokj ds fdlh ,d lnL; dks] tks mDr fo|ky;kssa esa
f’k{k.ksRrj inksa esa fu;qfDr gsrq fofgr vgZrk,a j[krk gks] ;Fkk’kh?kz lsok esa
fu;ksftr dj fy;k tk;] ;fn og ,slh fu;qfDr dk bPNqd gksA ,sls ekeyksa esa
T;s”B gksxk fd mDr inksa esa fu;qfDr gsrq fu/kkZfjr izfdz;kvksa ij fo’ks”k /;ku u
fn;k tk;] ijUrq ;g vo’; ns[k fy;k tk; fd lacaf/kr O;fDr f’k{k.ksRrj in
esa fu;qfDr gsrq os vgZrk,a j[krk gS] tks fu;eksa vkns’kksa ds vUrxZr bl iz;kstu
gsrq fofgr dh x;h gksaA ;g Hkh vko’;d gksxk fd fu;qDr fd, tkus okys
vH;FkhZ fu;qfDr ds le; 18 o”kZ dh vk;q iwjh dj pqds gksAa fu;qfDr dk
volj ;Fkk lEHko mlh fo|ky; esa fn;k tk;sxk] tgka fnoaxr deZpkjh lsok
esa jgk gksA ;fn ,sls fo|ky;ksa esa f’k{k.ksRrj in esa fjfDr ds vHkko esa dfBukbZ
iM+ jgh gks] rks nwljs fdlh Hkh iwoZ ek/;fed fo|ky; esa] tgka bl izdkj
dh fjfDr miyC/k gks] fu;qfDr dh tk ldrh gS] n`f”Vdks.k ;g gksxk fd e`r
deZpkjh ds ifjokj esa ls fdlh ,d O;fDr dks] tks in esa fu;qfDr gsrq fofgr
vgZrk,a j[krk gks] vfoyEc lsok;ksftr fd;k tk ldsA
2- lsok;ksftr fd;s tkus okys O;fDr e`r deZpkjh dh iRuh ;k mldk
ifr vFkok mldk iq= vFkok mldh ,slh iq=h tks vfookfgr vFkok fo/kok gks]
gks ldrk gSA
3- ;g vkns’k fnukad 1 tuojh] 1991 ;k mlds mijkUr e`r deZpkfj;ksa
ds ekeyksa esa ykxw gksxkA
44- eq>s ;g vuqjks/k djuk gS fd d`i;k ‘kklu ds mi;ZqDr fu.kZ; ls vki
vius v/khuLFk vf/kdkfj;ksa o leLr lgk;rk izkIr y?kq ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa ds
izc/a kkf/kdj.kksa@iz/kkukpk;ksaZ vkfn dks rRdky voxr djkus rFkk fu.kZ; ds
vuqikyu gsrq vko’;d O;oLFkk djus dk d”V djssaA fo’ks”k dh i`”BHkwfe esa
fofu;eksa ds la’kks/ku dh dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA”
Second Government Order dated 31st 1997 mentions the subject as
follows:
“fo”k; % v’kkldh; lgk;rk izkIr iwoZ ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa ds
‘kSf{kd@f’k{k.ksRrj deZpkfj;ksa dh lsokdky esa e`R;q gks tkus dh
n’kk esa muds ifjokj ds fdlh ,d lnL; dks fu;qfDr iznku
fd;k tkukA”
This Government Order was issued only to remove the difficulties that
had arisen the implementation of the Government Order dated 25th
September, 1991, reference opening para of the letter, which read as follows:
“eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ’k gqvk gS fd v’kkldh; lgk;rk izkIr iwoZ
ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa esa dk;Zjr f’k{kd @f’k{k.ksRrj deZpkfj;ksa dh lsokdky esa
e`R;q gks tkus ij muds ifjokj ds fdlh ,d lnL; dks] tks fofgr vgZrk
j[krk gks] dks f’k{k.ksRrj in ij u;qfDr fd;s tkus dh lqfo/kk ‘kklukns’k
la0&2127 @ 15&6&91&28¼66½@90] fnukad 27-9-91 }kjk 1 tuojh] 1991
ls iznku dh x;h gS fdUrq bl O;oLFkkuqlkj e`rd vkfJr dh fu;qfDr esa gksus
okyh dfBukb;ksa rFkk mls nwj djus gsrq f’k{kd la?k dh ekax ij lE;d~
fopkjksijkUr ‘kklu }kjk e`rd deZpkjh ds vkfJr dh fu;qfDr ds lEca/k esa
fuEufyf[kr fu.kZ; fy;s x;s gS%&”
Reference may also be had to the first paragraph of the Government
Order, which reads as follows:
“1- fdlh ekU;rk izkIr v’kkldh; iwoZ ek/;fed fo|ky; dk
v/;kid ;k f’k{k.ksRrj deZpkjh tks fofgr izfdz;k ds vuqlkj fd;k x;k gks] dh
lsokdky esa e`R;q gks tk;s] rks mlds ifjokj ds ,d lnL; dks ftlus 18
¼vB~Bkjg½ o”kZ dh vk;q iw.kZ dh yh gks rFkk fu;ekuqlkj fu/kkZfjr ‘kSf{kd ,oa
izf’k{k.k dh ;ksX;rk j[krk gks] dks fdlh v’kkldh; in ij fu;qfDr dh
tk;sxh] izfrcU/k ;g gS fd ;g O;oLFkk vYila[;d oxZ }kjk LFkkfir vkSj
iz’kkflr fd;k ekU;rk izkIr@lgk;rk izkIr fo|ky; ds lEcU/k esa ykxw ugh
gksxhA”
Although the word “lgk;rk izkIr ” is not mentioned in Clause-1 of the
Government Order but the subsequent clauses of the same Government
Order, namely, clauses 5, 8 and 9 leave no room to doubt that such benefit is
to be conferred only to an employee working in aided and recognised
institution. Clauses 5, 8 and 9 read as follows:
5
“5- lkekU; izkIr@lgk;rk izkIr fo|ky; dk izca/kra=
f’k{kd@f’k{k.ksRrj deZpkjh dks e`R;q gksus ds fnukad ls lkr fnu ds vUnj
ftyk csfld f’k{kk vf/kdkjh dks mlds ifjokj ds lnL;ksa dh ,d fjiksVZ izLrqr
djsxk ftles e`r deZpkjh dk uke /k`r in] osrueku fu;qfDr dk fnukad] e`R;q
dk fnukad] fu;kstd fo|ky; dk uke vkSj mlds dqVqEc ds lnL;ksa dk uke]
mudh ‘kSf{kd vkSj izf’k{k.k vgZrk;sa] ;fn dksbZ gks] vkSj vk;q dk fooj.k fn;k
tk;sxk ftyk csfld f’k{kk vf/kdkjh vius dk;kZy; vfHkys[kksa esa e`rd dh
izfof”V;kW ntZ djsxkA
8- e`r deZpkjh ds ifjokj ds lnL; dh fu;qfDr mldh ‘kSf{kd vgZrkvksa
ds vuqlkj izf’kf{kr lgk;d v/;kid Js.kh esa ;k fdlh f’k{k.ksRrj in ij
;FkklaHko mlh fo|ky; esa dh tk;sxh tgka e`r deZpkjh viuh e`R;q ds le;
lsokjr FkkA ;fn ml fo|ky; esa in fjDr u gks rks mldh fu;qfDr ftys ds
fdlh vU; ekU;rk izkIr@lgk;rk izkIr fo|ky; esa dksbZ fjfDr rRle; fo|
eku u gks rks ml fo|ky; esa tgkW e`rd viuh e`R;q ds le; lsokjr FkkA
fu;qfDr ;FkkfLFkfr lgk;d v/;kid ;k f’k{k.ksRrd in ij vf/kla[; in ds
izfr dh tk;sxhA izfrca/k ;g Hkh gS fd fyfidh; in ij fdlh e`rd vkfJr
dh fu;qfDr gsrq vf/kla[; in l`ftr ugh fd;s tk;saxsA ,sls vf/kla[; in dks
bl iz;kstu ds fy;s l`ftr fd;k le>k tk;sxk vkSj mls rc rd tkjh j[kk
tk;sxk tc rd dksbZ fjfDr mDr fo|ky; ;k ftys ds fdlh vU; ekU;rk
izkIr@lgk;rk izkIr fo|ky; esa miyC/k u gks tk;s vkSj ,slh fLFkfr esa
vf/kla[; in ds in/kkjd }kjk dh x;h lsok dh x.kuk osru fu/kkZj.k vkSj
lsokfuo`Rr ykHkksa ds fy;s dh tk;sxhA izfrca/k ;g Hkh gS fd ftl osrueku esa
e`rd vkfJr dh fu;qfDr dh tk; mlh osrueku vFkok mlds fudV ds
osrueku essa ,d in rc rd fjDr j[kk tk;sxk tc rd fd bl vf/kla[;d
in dk lek;kstu u gks tk;sA
9- lacaf/kr ekU;rk izkIr@lgk;rk izkIr fo|ky; ds izca/kra=] ftldks
ftyk csfld f’k{kk vf/kdkjh }kjk vkosnu i= Hkstk tk;sxk] }kjk vkosnu i=
dh izkfIr ds fnukad ds ,d ekl dh vof/k ds Hkhrj ftyk csfld f’k{kk
vf/kdkjh dh lwpuk nsrs gq, i= tkjh fd;k tk;sxkA”
Last Government Order dated 22nd July, 2000 further explained the
position, as per the opening sentence of the Government Order, which reads
as follows:
“mijksDr fo”k;d ‘kk0 la0&2127@15&6&91&28¼66½@90 fnukad 29-9-
91 }kjk fnukad 1-1-91 ls v’kkldh; lgk;rk iwoZ ek/;fed fo|ky;ksa esa
dk;Zjr f’k{kd@deZpkfj;ksa dh lsokdky esa e`R;q gks tkus ij muds ifjokj ds
fdlh ,d lnL; dks] tks fofgr vgZrk j[krk gks] dks f’k{k.ksRrj in ij fu;qfDr
fd;s tkus dh lqfo/kk iznku dh x;h ,oa bl O;oLFkkuqlkj fu;qfDr e`rd vkfJrksa
dh fu;qfDr esa gksus okyh dfBukbZ;ksa dks nwj djus gsrq ‘kklukns’k
la0&231@15&6&97&28¼66½@90 fnukad 31-1-97 }kjk la’kksf/kr fd;k x;k gSA
blds mijkUr Hkh e`rd vkfJrksa dh fu;qfDr esa izdV gq;h leL;kvksa ds n`f”Vxr
lE;d fopkjksijkUr ‘kklu }kjk e`rd vkfJrksa dh fu;qfDr ds lac/a k esa fuEuklqkj
la’kks/ku dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS%&
orZeku fu;e la’kksf/kr fu;e
fdlh ekU;rk izkIr v’kkldh; fdlh ekU;rk izkIr v’kkldh;
iwoZ ek/;fed fo|ky; dk vLFkk;h@LFkk;h@vuqnkfur
6
v/;kid ;k f'k{k.ksRrj iwoZ ek/;fed fo|ky; ds
deZpkjh tks fofgr izfdz;k ds f'k{kd@f'k{k.ksRrj deZpkjh
vuqlkj fu;qDr fd;k x;k gks] tks fofgr izfdz;k ds vuqlkj
dh lsokdky esa e`R;q gks tk;s] fu;qDr fd;k x;k gks] dh
rks mlds ifjokj ds ,d lsokdky esa e`R;q gks tk;s] rks
lnL; dks] ftlus 18 mlds ifjokj ds ,d lnL;
¼vB~Bkjg½ o"kZ dh vk;q iw.kZ dks] ftlus 18 ¼vB~Bkjg½ o"kZ
dj yh gks rFkk fu;ekuqlkj dh vk;q iw.kZ dj yh gks rFkk
fu/kkZfjr 'kSf{kd ,oa izf'k{k.k fu;ekuqlkj fu/kkZfjr 'kSf{kd
;ksX;rk j[krk gks] dks fdlh ,oa izf'k{k.k ;ksX;rk j[krk gks]
v'kkldh; lgk;rk iwoZ Þdh mlh fo|ky; esaß ;k
ek/;fed fo|ky; esa ;Fkk le:i Js.kh ds fdlh
fLFkfr f'k{kd vFkok f'k{k.ksRrj vLFkk;h@LFkk;h@vuqnkfur
in ij fu;qfDr dh tk;sxh] v'kkldh; iwoZ ek/;fed fo|
izfrca/k ;g gS fd ;g O;oLFkk ky; esa ;Fkk fLFkfr f'k{kd
vYila[;d oxZ }kjk LFkkfir vFkok f'k{k.ksRrj in ij
vkSj iz'kkflr fdlh ekU;rk fu;qfDr dh tk;sxhA le:i
izkIr@lgk;rk izkIr fo|ky; Js.kh esa fHkUu fo|ky;ksa esa
ds lac/a k esa ykxw ugh gksxhA mDr fu;qfDr vuqeU; ugh
gksxhA
The Secretary in guarded language, while the Director as well as
respondent no.7 have made an attempt to submit before this Court that the
Government Order admits of two interpretations, namely, if the institution is
recognised alone whether temporary/permanent, dependent of
employee/teacher working in such an institution would be entitled to
compassionate appointment as a stroke is there before the word “vuqnkfur”.
They submit that it is not necessary that the institution must necessary be
aided also. Interpretations so placed defeats the very purpose of the
Government Orders dated 25th September, 1991 and dated 31st January,
1997, as was explained under the Government Order dated 22nd July, 2000. It
was never the intention of the State to expand the applicability of the
provisions of compassionate appointment to the defendant of
teacher/employee working in unaided recognised institution. The Government
Orders are to be read as a whole and on examination of the same, specifically
the portion quoted above, the Court is of a firm opinion that it was never
intended under the said Government Orders that a dependent of an employee
working in an unaided recognised institution would be offered compassionate
appointment in an aided recognised institution, so as to draw salary from
State exchequer.
7
The argument of the respondent is that because of stroke placed after
the words “vLFkk;h@LFkk;h@ and vuqnkfur” in the Government Order dated 22nd
July, 2000, three categories of institutions are referred and covered for the
purposes of compassionate appointment i.e. (a) Private Junior High Schools
having temporary recognition, (b) Private Junior High Schools having
permanent recognition, and (c) Private Junior High Schools, which are aided.
These three categories do not overlap and are independent of each other. It is
not necessary that recognised (temporary or permanent) institutions must be
aided for the applicability of the Government Order.
The plea has only been raised to be rejected for following two reasons:
(a) The stroke placed before the word “vuqnkfur” cannot be read to
mean a separate category of institution inasmuch as unless an institution is
recognised (permanent or temporary), it cannot be provided aid by the
Government nor the provisions of (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other
Employees) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1978”) are
attracted. Reference Section 2 (e) of Act, 1978, which reads as follows:
“2….(e) “Institution” means a recognised Junior High School
for the time being receiving maintenance grant from the State
Government.”
Therefore, the word “vuqnkfur” within its ambit includes only those
category of institutions for which financial aid is provided by the Government,
it may have a permanent or temporary recognition.
(b) The last three lines of the clause of the Government Order dated
22nd July, 2000 underlined by the Court above, permit compassionate
appointment in same category of the institution only, for example, if the
deceased employee was working in a Junior High School, which had
temporary recognition, compassionate appointment can be granted in a
institution having temporary recognition only. Therefore, if aided Junior High
School constitutes a separate category, as suggested by he learned counsel
for the respondents, vis-a-vis non-aided Junior High School then dependent of
an employee dying during harness while working in an non-aided Junior High
School cannot be offered compassionate appointment in an aided Junior High
School.
It is to be kept in mind that the right to be offered compassionate
8
appointment was created for the first time under the Government Order dated
25th September, 1991, in respect of dependent of an employee expiring during
harness while working in a recognised and aided Junior High School.
Subsequent Government Orders dated 31st January, 1997 and dated 22nd
July, 2000 have only been issued to remove the difficulties, which were being
faced for enforcing the aforesaid right. Therefore the subsequent Government
Orders being in aid for implementing the basic decision for providing
compassionate appointment to the dependent of an employee/teacher, dying-
during-harness while working in aided institution cannot be read in any
manner to expand the scope of the original Government Order, or the
purpose for which the right was issued. All three Government Orders are to be
read together and to be harmonized, so as to achieve the purpose of the First
Government Order dated 25th September, 1991.
In the facts of the present case, it is admitted that the father of the
petitioner expired during harness while working in an unaided recognized
junior high school, it is held that petitioner is not entitled for any
compassionate appointment.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.
(Arun Tandon, J.)
Order Date :- 3.7.2010
Sushil/-