Allahabad High Court
Ram Pal Singh And 18 Ors. vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. on 19 March, 2024
Author: Ajit Kumar
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 34 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 32936 of 2016 Petitioner :- Ram Pal Singh And 18 Ors. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Grijesh Tiwari,Shri Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Krishna Gupta Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Grijesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Akanksha Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the District Basic Education Officer and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. Petitioners before this Court are aggrieved by the order passed by the Secretary, U.P. Basic Siksha Parishad, Allahabad dated 18.06.2016 filed as annexure 13A to 13-R, whereby their services have been terminated.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that these petitioners were offered compassionate appointment between 3rd November, 1997 and 1st July, 2000 except Vijendra Kumar and Pushpa Devi namely petitioner no. 6th and 10th petitioners respectively, who were offered appointment on 11th February, 2003 and on 19th February, 2002 respectively. All these petitioners undisputedly came to be appointed as dependents on compassionate ground for their sole earning members of the family dying-in-harness while in service between the year 1975 and 1993.
4. It transpires that prior to the year 1996, Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1974' )were not applicable to the institutions and offices under Basic Siksha Parishad and, therefore, compassionate appointments were not made even though repeatedly applications were being filed by their dependents of deceased employee either upon their attaining the age of majority or at the time of death, if they were major.
5. Meeting the persistent demands of the employees working under the U.P. Basic Siksha Parishad , the State Government issued a Government on 2nd February, 1996 for providing benefit of compassionate appointment to the dependents of teachers and other employees working under superintendent and control of U.P. Basic Siksha Parishad.
6. It further appears that there arose some questions with regard to limitation prescribed as 5 years under the Government Order because on the date of issuance of Government Order, there was a large number of applications of dependents of deceased employees, pending consideration as sole earning members of respective families had died-in-harness in between 10 to 20 years. Accordingly, the State Government directed vide its letter dated 22nd July, 1997 to the Secretary U.P. Basic Siksha Parishad, Allahabad to issue a clarificatory circular regarding power of the State Government in granting approval/sanction for appointment in those applications filed for compassionate appointment that were filed beyond period of five years and were already pending on the date of issuance of the Government Order, to the effect that each District Basic Education Officer of the State shall be taking decision at his own level on such applications. Thus the State Government intended to delegate this power to the District Basic Education Officer in so far as already pending applications are concerned regarding approval to the compassionate appointment in such matters. Accordingly, Secretary, U.P. Basic Siksha Parishad issued clarificatory circular as to the application of Clause 5 of the Government order dated 22nd July, 1997.
7. Yet another clarificatory letter was issued by the Secretary Basic Education Parishad dated 25th July, 1997, especially to the District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad relating to such matters in which applications were moved beyond period of 5 years of the date of death of the employee, by the dependents. It is pursuant to the Government Order and clarificatory circular issued by the Basic Siksha Parishad and letter issued especially to the District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad that petitioners were issued with appointment orders in different dates but on a fixed pay of Rs. 2550/-. Later on vide order issued by the District Basic Education Officer (relating to department of District Siksha Parishad) all these employees who were appointed on compassionate basis on a fixed pay, were awarded regular pay-scale as admissible to the class IV of Rs. 2550/- to Rs. 3200/- and were also permanently absorbed in the institutions w.e.f date of their initial appointments.
8. It appears that since these employees were not given pay-claim w.e.f initial dates of appointments, many of them jointly filed writ petition before this Court being Writ A No. 16086 of 2011 and the question arose as to how compassionate appointment in such a large number could have been made on class IV posts and that too on a fixed pay. This Court asked for certain clarifications from the department of Basic Shiksha Parishad relating to appointments made of such a large number of person on compassionate basis, 39 in numbers, praying for pay scale from initial date of appointment before this Court and which included some of the petitioners also. An affidavit of compliance was filed by the Secretary, Basic Siksha Parishad, Allahabad wherein it was stated that these appointments were irregular as prior sanction of the State Government was not obtained.
9. In the affidavit filed by Director of Basic Education U.P., it was specifically averred that all those petitioners were appointed prior to 4th September, 2000 under the Government Order dated 2nd February, 1996 and subsequent to year 2000, appointments were made under the Government Order dated 4th September, 2000 and all the appointments were made under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 as the same had been made applicable. However, this Court passed an interim direction in the writ petition no. 10686 of 2011 on 1st July, 2013 that such appointments could not have been made on a fixed pay, and still further appointments could not have been made especially of teachers on a fixed pay, and therefore, relying upon paragraph 3 of the affidavit of the Secretary, the Court found prima facie 39 appointments to be contrary to the Government Order applicable and accordingly directed for steps to be taken to correct the error and submit report. It is pursuant to aforesaid order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition that show cause notices were issued on 30.7.2013 to all compassionate appointees including petitioners who were working on class IV posts asking them to furnish explanation as to why their appointments may not be cancelled as their applications seeking compassionate appointment were filed beyond period of five years as prescribed under the Government Order and yet appointments were made without seeking prior permission from the State Government.
10. The petitioners claim to have submitted their reply to the said notice citing the Government Order dated 6th February, 1996 and clarificatory circulars issued by the Basic Siksha Parishad on 22.7.1997 and 25.7.1997 and yet their appointments came to be cancelled by separate orders passed in identical fashion and manner, on the ground that their replies were not satisfactory and that Court had returned a prima facie finding that their respective appointments were made illegally.
11. It is these above orders that are under challenge before this Court this petition.
12. Following submissions have been advanced by learned Senior Advocate Sri Ashok Khare:
(i). In view of of Government Order dated 6th February, 1996 and clarificatory letter of U.P. Basic Siksha Parishad, Allahabad issued on 22.7.1997 and separate clarificatory letter issued to the District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad on 25.7.1997, it was the District Basic Education Officer who was authorized to take decision on merits of the applications moved by dependents of the deceased employees even though applications were filed beyond prescribed period of five years. In the circumstances, it cannot be said, therefore, that compassionate appointments given to the petitioners were bad for not there being any prior approval/ sanction of the State Government;
(ii) The orders terminating the services of compassionate appointees are absolutely non speaking as being without least application of mind as to the explanation furnished by respective petitioners, and therefore, the entire exercise is rendered to be arbitrary;
(iii) Any interim order of this Court directing for appropriate action and proceeding was liable to be furnished first before this Court for adjudication, and so in the absence of ratification of such action by the Court in judicial proceedings disposing of the matter finally, it was not open for the respondents to have terminated the services of the petitioner; and
(iv) It is admitted case of the respondents themselves that petitioners were offered compassionate appointments for their sole earning member of the family dying-in-harness and so a mere irregularity, if any, in the matter of compassionate appointment should not be taken as an absolute illegality going to the root of the matter as such to annul the appointments.
13. Ms. Akanksha Sharma, learned Advocate appearing for the Siksha Parishad Officer, Moradabad has tried to justify the order of District Basic Education Officer terminating the services of the petitioner upon consideration of the interim direction of this Court in Writ Petition No. 16086 of 2011, however, on the point of consideration of explanation of petitioners to the show cause notice, she could not explain as to whether an expression "not satisfactory" would amount to according due consideration to the explanation offered by the petitioners in the matter of a show cause notice. Ms. Sharma, also could not dispute the clarificatory circular issued by the District Siksha Parishad on 22.7.1997 and the subsequent clarificatory letter issued especially to the District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad on 25.7.1997. She could also not dispute a fact that these appointments of petitioners were made on compassionate basis against class IV posts, may be initially on a fixed pay but subsequently were absorbed in the regular pay scale. She could also not dispute the affidavits filed by Director Basic Education in the earlier writ petition stating that appointments were made on compassionate basis and subsequent affidavit of the Secretary, Basic Siksha Parishad to hold that appointments were only irregular.
14. Learned Standing Counsel sought to justify the order for the reasons assigned therein.
15. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find there to be a basic question arising in this case as to whether appointments of the petitioners were irregular or were made following the Government Order and the circular and letter issued from time to time by U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, and therefore, their valid appointments were not suffering from any irregularity whatsoever.
16. It is admitted position to the parties that prior to 1996, Rules for compassionate appointment were not attracted in the matter of teachers and other employees working in various institutions and offices being run under the Superintendence and Control of U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad and since there were persistent demands to frame rules at par with Government employees under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 for dependents of the deceased employees under the Basic Siksha Parishad and they also be given benefit of compassionate appointments that the State Government issued a Government Order on 2nd February, 1996, which is reproduced hereunder:
"प्रेषक, श्री आलोक रंजन, सचिव, उत्तर प्रदेश शासन।
सेवा में, शिक्षा निदेशक (बेसिक) एवं अध्यक्ष, उत्तर प्रदेश बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद लखनऊ।
शिक्षा अनुभाग- (5) लखनऊः दिनांक 2 फरवरी 1996 विषयः उत्तर प्रदेश बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद् के अन्तर्गत कार्यरत शिक्षकों/ शिक्षणेत्तर कर्मचारियों की सेवाकाल में मृत्यु हो जाने पर उनके आश्रितों को नियुक्ति प्रदान किया जाना।
महोदय, उपर्युक्त विषयक आपके पत्र संख्या बे० शि० प०/25714/91-92 दिनांक 5.3.1995 तथा संख्या 41530/94-95 दिनांक 21.3.1995 में प्राप्त सुझाव पर विचार करते हुये राज्यपाल महोदय ने एतदविषयक शासनादेश संख्या 480/15.5.90-30/82 दिनांक 23.3.1990 तथा शासनादेश संख्या 5024/15.5.91-30/82 दिनांक 6.2.1992 को अतिक्रमित करते हुये निम्नलिखित निर्णय लिये जाने पर सहर्ष सहमति प्रदान की है-
1. ऐसे एक मृतक आश्रित जो बेरोजगार हो और नियमों के अन्तर्गत निर्धारित न्यूनतम शैक्षिक एवं प्रशिक्षण योग्यता रखते हो अथवा उससे अधिक शैक्षिक एवं प्रशिक्षण योग्यताएं रखते हो तथा अन्य प्रकार से परिषदीय सेवा हेतु अर्ह हो, को परिषदीय प्राइमरी स्कूलों के सहायक अध्यापक/अध्यापिकाओं के पदों पर अथवा परिषद के अधीन शिक्षणेत्तर कर्मचारी के तृतीय एवं चतुर्थ श्रेणी के पदों पर नियुक्ति हेतु आवेदन करने पर भर्ती के सामान्य नियमों/ प्रक्रिया को शिथिल करते हुये परिषदीय सेवा मे उपर्युक्त सेवायोजन प्रदान किया जायेगा।
2. उत्तर प्रदेश बेसिक शिक्षा अध्यापक सेवा नियमावली, 1981 के अनुसार अथवा अर्ह मृतक शिक्षक/शिक्षणेत्तर कर्मचारी एक एक आश्रित को जो अप्रशिक्षित हो, को परिवादी स्कूल में प्रशिक्षित सहायक अध्यापक/अध्यापिकाओं के पद पर सेवायोजन इस प्रतिबन्ध के साथ प्रदान किया जायेगा कि ऐसे व्यक्ति को नियुक्ति के पश्चात तीन वर्षों के अन्दर सेवारत प्रशिक्षण प्राप्त करना अनिवार्य होगा तथा प्रशिक्षण सम्बन्धी निर्धारित अर्हता पूर्ण कर लेने के उपरान्त उनकी नियमित नियुक्ति की जायेगी।
3. मृतक आश्रित की नियुक्ति उसकी शैक्षिक योग्यता के अनुसार शिक्षक अथवा शिक्षणेत्तर पद पर यथा सम्भव उसी विद्यालय में की जायेगी जहां मृतक कर्मचारी अपनी सेवा के समय कार्यरत था। यदि उस विद्यालय में शिक्षक/शिक्षणेत्तर कर्मचारी का कोई पद रिक्त नहीं है तो मृतक आश्रित की नियुक्ति जनपद को इकाई मानते हुये जनपद के किसी विद्यालय मे जहाँ पद रिक्त हो की जायेगी। यदि जनपद के किसी विद्यालय में कोई रिक्ति तत्समय उपलब्ध न हो तो उस विद्यालय में जहाँ मृतक अपनी मृत्यु के समय कार्यरत था अथवा जहाँ आवश्यकता हो उस विद्यालय में नियुक्ति शिक्षण/ शिक्षणेत्तर पद के प्रति अधिसंख्या पद के समक्ष तुरन्त की जायेगी। ऐसे अधिसंख्या पद को इस प्रयोजन के लिये सृजित किया समझा जायेगा और उसे तब तक जारी रखा जायेगा जब तक कोई रिक्ति उस विद्यालय मे अथवा जिले के किसी अन्य विद्यालय मे उपलब्ध न हो जाये और ऐसी स्थिति में अधिसंख्या पद के पदधारी द्वारा की गयी सेवा की गणना वेतन निर्धारण और सेवा निवृत्त लाभों के लिये की जायेगी।
4. मृतक आश्रित को उस दशा मे भी सेवा योजन प्रदान किया जायेगा यदि उसके द्वारा कर्मचारी की मृत्यु के दिनांक से 5 वर्षों के भीतर सेवा योजन के लिये आवेदन किया गया हो, परन्तु प्रतिबन्ध यह होगा कि उसकी नियुक्ति उपर्युक्त खण्डों मे उल्लिखित रिक्त या अधिसंख्या पद पर की जायेगी जिसके लिये वह तत्समय सेवायोजन के नियमोौं के अन्तर्गत अर्ह होगें। यदि कर्मचारी की मृत्यु के दिनांक को मृतक आश्रित की आयु निर्धारित सीमा की नहीं रही और वह कर्मचारी की मृत्यु के दिनांक से 5 वर्ष के भीरत सेवायोजन हेतु निर्धारित आयु सहित शैक्षिक योग्यता प्राप्त कर लेता है, तो उस दशा में भी सेवायोजन प्रदान किया जायेगा।
5. यदि किसी विशिष्ट मामले में कर्मचारी की मृत्यु के दिनांक से 5 वर्ष की निर्धारित अवधि के बाद आवेदन किया जाये और राज्य सरकार का यह समाधान हो जाये कि सेवायोजन के लिये आवेदन करने के लिए निवृत्त समय सीमा से किसी ऐसे मामले में अनुचित कठिनाई होती है। वहाँ वह अपेक्षाओं को जिन्हें वह मामलें मे न्यायसंगत और साम्यपूर्ण रीति से कार्यवाही करने के लिये आवश्यक समझे अभिमुक्त या शिथिल कर सकती है। जनपद के इस प्रकार के प्राप्त आवेदन-पत्र को परीक्षणोपरान्त जिला बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी, लेखाधिकारी तथा मण्डलीय सहायक शिक्षा निदेशक (बेसिक) के संयुक्त हस्ताक्षर सहित सचिव, बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद् को भेजा जायेगा, जिनके द्वारा आवेदन पत्र शिक्षा निदेशक (बेसिक) अध्यक्ष बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद् का अनुमोदन प्राप्त कर शासन की अनुमति हेतु भेजे जायेगें।
6. मृतक आश्रित का तात्पर्य, मृतक शिक्षक/कर्मचारी के पुत्र, अविवाहित अथवा विधवा पुत्री पत्नी अथवा पति से होगा जो उत्तर प्रदेश सेवाकाल में मृत सरकारी सेवकों के आश्रितों की भर्ती (तृतीय संशोधन) नियमावली, 1993 विषयक अधिसूचना संख्या 6/12/73-का.../93 दिनांक 14.4.1993 में दी गयी व्यवस्था के अनुसार बेरोजगार हो।
7. शासनादेश संख्या 2137/15.5.81-448/76 दिनांक 20 फरवरी, 1982 के अन्तर्गत चतुर्थ श्रेणी के फालतू कर्मचारियों के समायोजन हेतु नई नियुक्तियां न किये जाने का प्रतिबन्ध मृतक आश्रितों की चतुर्थ श्रेणी पदों पर नियुक्तियों में लागू न होगा।
8. यह आदेश उत्तर प्रदेश बेसिक शिक्षा अधिनियम, 1972 (उत्तर प्रदेश अधिनियम संख्या 34 सन् 1972) की धारा 13 की उपधारा (1) के अन्तर्गत जारी करते हुये राज्यपाल महोदय यह निर्देश देते है कि उपर्युक्त निर्णयों के अनुसार कार्यवाही की जाये।
9. उपर्युक्त आदेश वित्त विभाग के अशासकीय पत्र संख्या-163/XI-ई०-11/95 दिनांक 28 जनवरी, 1996 से प्राप्त उनकी सहमति से निर्गत किये जा रहे हैं।
भवदीय अलोक रंजन, सचिव।"
(emphasis added)
17. On a bare reading of the aforesaid Government Order, specially Clause IV and V thereof, I find that in the matter of deceased employees who died-in-harness, 5 years' period was provided for making application for compassionate appointment, however, appointments could be made even on supernumerary posts provided of course, the dependents seeking compassionate appointment were having requisite qualifications for the post upon which they were to be considered for being offered compassionate appointment. In the matters of applications filed beyond period of five years of the death of employee, the discretion was vested with the State Government to relax the condition of 5 years and grant its approval for compassionate appointment. Thus, it was clear that upto 5 years from the death of the employee, dependent would easily maintain his application for compassionate appointment and the concerned competent authority was authorized to pass orders, but in the matter application filed beyond a period of five years, the State Government was required to provide relaxation upon such delayed application and grant sanction for the purpose of compassionate appointments.
18. Soon-after the Government Order was issued, the State Government seems to have written some Government letter to the Secretary Basic Siksha Parishad on 2nd July, 1997 to the effect that in matters where applications had been filed beyond prescribed limitation of five years prior to issuance of the Government Order dated 2nd February, 1996, those applications should be disposed of at the level of the competent authority itself and apprise the office of the Basic Siksha Parishad about decision taken. True copy of the Circular letter issued by the Siksha Parishad on 22.7.97 is reproduced hereunder:
"प्रेषक, सचिव, उ० प्र० बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद, इलाहाबाद।
सेवा में, जिला बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी उत्तर प्रदेश।
पत्रांक- बे० शि०प०/ मु०आ०/ 10159-408/97-98 दिनांक 22-7-1997 विषय- उ०प्र० बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद द्वारा संचालित विद्यालयों/कार्यालयों में कार्यरत शिक्षक/ शिक्षणेत्तर कर्मचारियों की मृत्यु के 5 वर्ष के बाद आवेदन करने वाले मृतक आश्रितों की नियुक्ति के सम्बन्ध मेंः महोदय, उपर्युक्त विषयक के सम्बन्ध में शासन ने अपने पत्र संख्या-4162/15-5-97 दिनांक 2 जुलाई 1997 द्वारा यह निर्देश दिये हैं कि शासनादेश संख्या-1095/15-5-95-30/82 दिनांक 2 फरवरी-1996 में परिषदीय कर्मचारी की मृत्यु के दिनांक से 5 वर्ष के पश्चात आवेदन करने पर राज्य सरकार को मृतक आश्रितों के सेवायोजन के सम्बन्ध में समय-सीमा से छुट प्रदान करने का प्राविधान शासनादेश संख्या-1095/15-5-95-30-30/82 दिनांक 2 फऱवरी-1996 के निर्गमन की तिथि से प्रभावी होगा।
शासन द्वारा यह भी निर्देश दिये गये है कि कार्मिक अनुभाग-2 द्वारा निर्गत अधिसूचना संख्या-6/12/73 कास-2 (उ० प्र० सेवाकाल मे मृत सरकारी सेवकों के आश्रितों की भर्ती नियमावली (तृतीय संशोधन) 1993 दिनांक 16.4.93 के प्रावधान राजकीय कर्मचारियों के सम्बन्ध में है।
उक्त के आलोक मे शासनादेश संख्या-1095/15-5-95-30/82 दिनांक 2 फरवरी-1996 के पूर्व के ऐसे सभी प्रकरणों पर जिसमें परिषदीय कर्मचारियों के मृतक आश्रितों द्वारा सेवायोजन हेतु आवेदन पत्र परिषदीय कर्मचारियों की मृत के दिनांक से 5 वर्ष के पश्चात किया गया है को नियुक्ति प्रदान करने के सम्बन्ध में नियुक्ति अधिकारी के स्तर पर ही निर्णय लिया जायेगा। अतः मृत्यु तिथि के 5 वर्ष के बाद आवेदन करने वाले मृतक आश्रितों की नियुक्ति के सम्बन्ध मे तथ्यों का भलीभांति परीक्षण करके तत्काल नियमानुसार कार्यवाही सुनिश्चित करें तथा कृत कार्यवाही से परिषद मुख्यालय का अवगत कराये।
(2) जिन जनपदों मे मृतक आश्रितों की नियुक्ति के प्रकरण लोक शिकायत निदेशालय उ०प्र० लखनऊ में पंजीकृत है वहां के जिला बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी सम्बन्धित की नियुक्ति नियमानुसार करे एक सप्ताह के अन्दर परिषद मुख्यालय के प्रकरा सहित अवगत कराये तथा लोक शिकायत प्रकरणों को निस्तारित करते हुये प्रकरणों की संख्या से भी अवगत कराये।
(3) जिन कर्मचारियों की मृत्यु के पश्चात उनके आश्रितों द्वारा अभी तक नियुक्ति हेतु आवेदन नही किया है वहां के जिला बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी सम्बन्धित मृतक आश्रित से अपने स्तर से आवेदन पत्र प्राप्त करके 30 दिन के अन्दर परीक्षणोपरान्त नियुक्ति पत्र जारी कर दें और प्रत्येक कृत स्थित से परिषद मुख्यालय को अवगत कराये।
इसमें किसी भी प्रकार की शिथिलता न बरती जाये। उपरोक्त आदेशों का कड़ाई से अनुपालन सुनिश्चित किया जाय।
भवदीय पवनेश कुमार सचिव उ०प्र० बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद इलाहाबाद।"
(emphasis added)
19. Yet another clarificatory letter was issued on 25.7.1997 specially to District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad in respect of such matters to take decision at his own level. True copy of circular letter issued on 25.7.1997 is reproduced hereunder:
"प्रेषक, सचिव, उ० प्र० बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद, इलाहाबाद।
सेवा में,
जिला बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी मुरादाबाद
पत्रांक- बे० शि०प०/ मु०आ०/ 11632-33/97-98 दिनांक 25-7-1997
विषय- उ०प्र० बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद द्वारा संचालित विद्यालयों/ कार्यालयों में कार्यरत शिक्षक/ शिक्षणेत्तर कर्मचारियों की मृत्यु के 5 वर्ष के बाद आवेदन करने वाले मृतक आश्रितों की नियुक्ति हेतु अनुमति के सम्बन्ध में।
महोदय, उपर्युक्त विषय के सम्बन्ध में शासन ने अपने पत्र संख्या-4162/15-5-97 दिनांक 2 जुलाई 1997 द्वारा यह निर्देश दिये हैं कि शासनादेश संख्या-1095/15-5-95-30/82 दिनांक 2, फरवरी-1996 में परिषदीय कर्मचारी की मृत्यु के दिनांक से 5 वर्ष के पश्चात आवेदन करने पर राज्य सरकार को मृतक आश्रितों के सेवायोजन के सम्बन्ध में समय-सीमा से छुट प्रदान करने का प्रावधान शासनादेश संख्या-1095/15-5-95-30/82 दिनांक 2, फऱवरी-1996 के निर्गमन की तिथि से प्रभावी होगा।
शासन द्वारा यह भी निर्देश दिये गये है कि कार्मिक अनुभाग-2 द्वारा निर्गत अधिसूचना संख्या-6/12/73 (उ० प्र० सेवाकाल मे मृत सरकारी सेवकों के आश्रितों की भर्ती (तृतीय संशोधन) नियमावली 1993 दिनांक 16.4.93 के प्रावधान राजकीय कर्मचारियों के सम्बन्ध में है।
उक्त के आलोक मे शासनादेश संख्या-1095/15-5-95-30/82 दिनांक 2, फरवरी-1996 के पूर्व के ऐसे सभी प्रकरणों पर जिनमें परिषदीय कर्मचारियों के मृतक आश्रितों द्वारा सेवायोजन हेतु आवेदन पत्र परिषदीय कर्मचारी की मृत के दिनांक से 5 वर्ष के पश्चात किया गया है, को नियुक्ति प्रदान करने के सम्बन्ध में नियुक्ति अधिकारी के स्तर पर ही निर्णय लिया जायेगा। तद्ननुसार आपके जनपद से प्राप्त सभी प्रकरणों को मूल रूप में संलग्न कर इस निर्देश के साथ प्रेषित है कि इनकी नियुक्ति के सम्बन्ध मे तथ्यों का भलीभांति परीक्षण करके तत्काल नियमानुसार कार्यवाही सम्पादित कर परिषद को 15 दिन के अन्दर अवगत कराये।
संलग्न- कुल 20 प्रकरणों की सूची भवदीय (पवनेश कुमार) सचिव उ०प्र० बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद इलाहाबाद।"
(emphasis added)
20. From bare reading of the two circular letters, it becomes clear that this was to clarify position of the State Government with regard to Clause 5 of the Government Order dated 2nd February, 1996 and now if the applications were pending for consideration may be moved beyond period of 5 years of the death of the employee , by the dependent but prior to 2nd February, 1996, all such applications were to be considered on their own merits and decision was to be taken by the District Basic Education Officer at his level and to furnish report to the head office of Basic Siksha Parishad, U.P. Allahabad. It is not disputed to the parties that thereafter appointments were made between 3.11.1997 and 11th February, 2003 on compassionate basis.
21. Looking to the Government Order and the circular letters issued by the Basic Siksha Parishad, it can be safely concluded that circular letter was issued with the consent of the Government and Government had the discretion to grant relaxation vide clause 5 of the Government Order, 1996. The Government could itself give sanction or to direct District Basic Education Officer to decide the claim at his own level on merits. District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad exercised his discretion judiciously on merits of each applications. This will also have to be presumed for the simple reason that neither in the affidavit filed by the authorities in earlier writ petition, nor in the counter affidavit before this Court in this petition it has been stated anywhere in pleadings that District Basic Education Officer did not inform U.P. District Basic Siksha Parishad about decision taken. In the face of these admitted fact postitions, therefore, once appointments were made in accordance with the Government order read with the circular letters, a question arise as to whether their appointments could have been cancelled by simply quoting and referring to the interim direction issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition on 1st July, 2013 without further considering explanation offered by the petitioner and without looking into the effect of the Government Order followed by relevant circular letters.
22. It is worth noticing here that order passed by this Court on 1st July, 2013 was to the effect that in the opinion of the Court appointments were illegal, and therefore, action was to be taken listing the matter again on 6th August, 2013 when action taken report was to be submitted before the Court by the Secretary and the ground taken by the Court in its order was that there could not have been any appointment on a fixed pay and that teachers could not have been appointed on a fixed pay by way of compassionate appointment. The learned Single Judge had expressed its view prima facie regarding validity of such appointment orders passed by the Court while passing order on 1st July, 2013 in Writ Petition No. 16086 of 2011, which is reproduced hereunder:
"It is, now a settled practice in the Basic and Secondary Education Department of the U.P.Government to first make illegal appointments contrary to the statutory provisions and to ensure payment of salary to the illegal appointees and then when the Court seeks information about such appointments the Secretary or Director come out with the report that certain appointments are illegal yet no accountability is fixed for such appointments and no action is taken against the officers who have made such illegal appointments/payment to illegal appointees.
The affidavit filed by the Secretary of the Basic Shiksha Parishad records that there is no Government order for offering compassionate appointment to the dependants on Class IV posts on fixed pay. The provision for appointment on compassionate ground on fixed pay is applicable only in respect of those persons who are appointed as untrained teacher. But the officers of the Education Department do not follow the rule of law.
A copy of the affidavit of Secretary of the Basic Shiksha Parishad dated 27.5.2013 has also been produced before this Court. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit, it is further stated that there have been 39 illegal appointments on compassionate ground contrary to the Government Order applicable. In some cases, such compassionate appointments have been offered after two decades of the death of the employee concerned.
In the opinion of the Court, Secretary, Basic Education must take all suitable action as is warranted under law against those Basic Shiksha Adhikari and other officers who have made such illegal appointments. The money paid to 39 appointees must be recovered from those officers who have made such illegal appointments and not from the employees. The responsibility must be fastened upon against the officers for creating such a situation and for ruining the entire education system of the State of U.P. The Secretary shall pin-point the name of the officers who have made such appointments and shall also issue appropriate orders for recovery of the amount from the officers' salary if they are in service and if they are not in service, the recovery shall be made from other funds of the officers.
A circular may also be issued informing all the Basic Shiksha Adhikaris throughout the State that compassionate appointment should be made in accordance with the rules. In case, it is found that any illegal appointment has been made in the garb of compassionate appointment, then the liability to return the money paid towards salary to such employee would be squarely upon such officers who make such appointments.
The matter shall be listed again on 6.8.2013 by which date, the Secretary concerned shall submit his action taken report before the Court. The Secretary must also ensure that all those persons who have been legally appointed are paid their right dues.
The office is directed to trace out affidavit dated 27.5.2013 and place it on record. "
(emphasis added)
23. It is on the basis of aforesaid order that show cause notices were issued to the petitioners in which only ground was taken that since appointments were made considering the applications filed beyond period of 5 years and there was no sanction of the State Government to grant relaxation, their appointments were bad and so why these appointments may not be cancelled. One such show cause notice issued to the Chabbil Singh, namely petitioner no. 7 is reproduced hereunder on 30.7.2013.
"माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद में योजित याचिका संख्या 16086/2011 में पारित आदेश दिनांक 1.7.2013 के अनुपालन में आपकी मृतक आश्रित के रूप में की गयी नियुक्ति का परीक्षण किया गया है। नियमानुसार मृत्यु के पांच वर्ष पश्चात् मृतक आश्रित की नियुक्ति किये जाने हेतु प्रकरण जिला बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी के द्वारा सचिव बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद, इलाहाबाद को प्रेषित किया जाना चाहिए तद्उपरान्त सचिव बेसिक शिक्षा परिषद के माध्यम से शासन को प्रेषित किया जाना चाहिए। तत्तपश्चात शासन से प्राप्त अनुमति के क्रम में मृतक आश्रित के रूप में नियुक्ति प्रदान की जानी चाहिए थी। किन्तु आपके मृतक आश्रित के रूप में नियुक्ति पांच वर्ष के पश्चात् की गयी है उपरोक्त विहित प्रक्रिया के अनुरूप शासन से अनुमति प्राप्त नही की गयी।
स्पष्टतः आपकी नियुक्ति अनियमित हैं। नियत वेतनमान के पद पर जू० हा० स्कूल मदार पुर विकास क्षेत्र ठाकुर द्वारा जनपद मुरादाबाद में चतुर्थ श्रेणी पद पर की गयी आपकी नियुक्ति में स्पष्ट हुआ है, कि स्व० रामचन्द्र सिंह पद सं० अ० विद्यालय प्रा० वि० रामपुर घोघर विकास क्षेत्र ठाकुर द्वारा की मृत्यु दिनांक 21.6.1987 के मृत्यु तिथि के पांच वर्ष की अवधि के पश्चात आपकी नियुक्ति की गयी है।
एतत्द्वारा आपको नोटिस के माध्यम से सूचित किया जाता है कि आप अपनी नियुक्ति के सम्बन्ध मे उपरोक्त तथ्यों के सापेक्ष अपना स्पष्टीकरण पक्ष दिनांक 07.8.2013 (7 दिन) तक उपलब्ध कराये, जिससे उसका परीक्षण किया जा सके, और तद्नुसार अग्रेत्तर कार्यवाही की जा सके।
यदि निर्धारित तिथि तक आपका स्पष्टीकरण प्राप्त नहीं होता है तो यह समझा जायेगा, कि इस संबंध में आपको कुछ नहीं कहना है, और तद्नुसार उपलब्ध तथ्यों एवं अभिलेखों के अनुसार कार्यवाही सम्पन्न कर दी जायेगी।
(सिद्धार्थ कुमार रावत) नियुक्ति प्राधिकारी, उप बेसिक शिक्षा अधिकारी मुरादाबाद।"
(emphasis added)
24. The petitioners did submit their respective replies but authorities proceeded to pass order on the basis of interim direction issued in the pending writ petition holding that reply was not satisfactory.
25. Looking to the interim direction issued by this Court, I find that this Court had expressed its such view upon the affidavit filed and such view would be taken to be a prima facie view only as the order does not disclose that any hearing had been provided to the petitioners and I find that direction was issued vide a suo motu action in directing the authorities to embark upon an enquiry into validity of the appointments of petitioners. In the writ petition, there was no such prayer, nor any counter claim was set up by the State. The question whether petitioners were rightly or wrongly appointed required a finding of fact to be returned in the matter. A prima facie view of the Court by way direction cannot be said to be a final adjudication of the issue, and therefore, once the court required the authorities to submit action taken report fixing date in the matter in the next month, it meant that court would apply its mind to the action taken and naturally affected parties would be heard. It appears that authorities in a hush-hush manner submitted report since writ petition remained pending, and therefore, terminated services of petitioners holding replies of the petitioners to be not satisfactory. The writ petition though was pending on the date when these impugned orders were passed and came to be challenged by petitioners in the present writ petition but the earlier writ petition later got dismissed for want of prosecution and no restoration application was filed to the dismissal of the writ petition.
26. In the considered view of the Court, therefore, interim direction issued therein also got merged with final order and there has been, as a matter of fact, no adjudication there in the said case. Now, therefore, order passed by the authorities terminating services of such employees required independent examination in the present petition and merit involved in the case as I have already held that circular letters provided for such appointments to be finalized at the level of District Basic Education Officer.
27. In the entire counter affidavit there is no averment that State ever issued any direction for recall of such appointments order, nor there is any such averment that District Basic Education Officer, Moradabad did not furnish report to the Basic Siksha Parishad, Allahabad/Prayagraj and instead, I find that all these petitioners were granted regular pay scale in 2008 absorbing them against existing posts in institutions where they were working on fixed pay basis. Thus appointment of petitioner on compassionate basis cannot be faulted with.
28. Since Government Order provided for compassionate appointment to be given on supernumerary post, if the authorities gave appointments on a fixed pay treating the vacancies as supernumerary not admissible to the pay-scale, such appointments cannot be said to be absolutely illegal so as to annul them. The only aspect that can be said to be having some substance that it required investigation as to why respondents appointed these petitioners on a fixed pay. This question could have been answered by the respondents in their counter affidavit but it has been simply averred in the counter affidavit that appointments were made without prior approval of the State Government, which I have held above was not required in the given special facts and circumstances of this case as State Government itself had permitted for issuance of circular letter on 22nd July, 1997 and 25th July, 1997.
29. In view of the above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Termination of services of petitioners vide separate orders dated 18.6.2016 (Annexure No. 13-A to 13-R) are hereby quashed. Petitioners are directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits, however they will be taken to be in regular pay-scale only w.e.f 10.3.2008.
Order Date :- 19.3.2024 Sanjeev