Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. And Others vs Sushil Kumar Mishra And Others on 30 August, 2017
Author: Arun Tandon
Bench: Arun Tandon, Siddhartha Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Court No. - 10 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 202 of 2013 Appellant :- State Of U.P. And Others Respondent :- Sushil Kumar Mishra And Others Counsel for Appellant :- A.K. Roy, S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- V.B. Mishra,K.P. Pandey,Pankaj Barnwal Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 9.12.2011 whereby the Writ Court has held that the order cancelling the compassionate appointment offered to the petitioner, by the Deputy Director of Education vide order dated 31.12.2003 was legally not sustainable. A direction has also been issued for payment of salary to the petitioner on the strength of the compassionate appointment which was to be offered by the Institution. Not satisfied the State has filed this intra court appeal.
Facts relevant for deciding this appeal are as under:
The father of the petitioner Sri Ram Asharey Mishra was working as a Principal of Sarswati Sanskrit Pathshala, Pipiganj, Gorakhpur, an institution affiliated to Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi. It is stated that the father of the writ petitioner died during harness on 18.10.1998. The petitioner made an application on 13.10.2000 before the Committee of Management for compassionate appointment. The application was forwarded by the Committee of Management, on 23.10.2000, to the District Inspector of Schools and the matter was also referred to Sampurnanand Sanskrit University. The District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur approved the proposal of the Committee of Management for offering compassionate appointment to the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher. The Vice Chancellor of the University also accorded his approval vide order dated 27.6.2001. The petitioner was issued an appointment letter and was also permitted to join on 8.7.2001. However, when the salary bill of the petitioner was submitted by the Committee of Management, the same was not passed, leading to the filing of Writ Petition No. 47149 of 2003.
The petition was disposed of on 21.10.2003 requiring the Deputy Director of Education (Sanskrit), U.P. Allahabad to take a decision in the matter in accordance with the provisions applicable.
The Deputy Director of Education (Sanskrit) vide order dated 31.12.2003 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the date on which when the father of the petitioner expired there was no provision for compassionate appointments being offered to the dependents. For the first time vide Government Order dated 14.6.1999 amendment in the Statutes was affected which are prospective in nature and providing for compassionate appointment to be offered to the dependants on an employees who expires subsequent to the enforcement of the said amendment.
The learned Single Judge has, however, held that the provision for appointment on compassionate basis could be enforced qua an employee who had expired earlier to the enforcement of the amendment in the Statute. As this date would be the date of consideration of the application for compassionate appointment which in the facts of the case was posterior to the date of amendment in the Statute.
The learned Standing Counsel disputes the correctness of the finding so returned.
Sri V. K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents supports the judgment with the help of the order passed in Writ Petition No.1288 of 2003 (Ram Naresh Vs. State of U.P. and another).
We have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the respective parties and have gone through the amendments introduced in the Statute of the Sampurnanand Sanskrit University under the letter of the Governor of the State of U.P. dated 14.6.1999. The relevant part of Statute 5(1) of the Statutes framed under Apendix-E reads as follows:
"5(1) ;fn bl fu;ekoyh ds izkjEHk gksus ds i'pkr fdlh fo'ofo|ky;@egkfo|ky; lsod dh lsokdky esa e`R;q gks tk, rks mlds dqVqEc ds ,sls ,d lnL; dks tks dsfUnz; ljdkj ;k jkT; ljdkj dh lsok esa ;k mlds lkfeRok/khu ;k mlds }kjk fu;fU=r fdlh fudk; ds v/khu ;k fo'ofo|ky; @ egkfo|ky; ds igys ls lsok;ksftr u gks bl izk;kstu ds fy, vkosnu djus ij HkrhZ ds lkekU; fu;eksa dks f'kfFky djrs gq, fo'ofo|ky; @egkfo|ky; lsok esa mi;qDr lsok;kstu iznku fd;k tk,xkA"
From a simple reading of the aforesaid clause, it will be seen that it permits making of application for compassionate appointment only by dependants of an employee who expires during harness on a date subsequent to the enforcement of the Rules. The Rules have not been given any retrospective operation and do not provide for any claim for compassionate appointment upon the dependants of the employee who had expired prior to the date of amendment in the Statute.
We are of the considered opinion that on the simple reading of the Statute quoted above, the Deputy Director of Education (Sanskrit) appears to be more than correct in returning a finding that as the father of the petitioner had expired prior to the date of enforcement of the amended Statutes, no claim for compassionate appointment could have been entertained. Payment of salary to such an appointee has rightly been refused.
We may also record that the Division Bench judgment so heavily relied upon by the counsel for the appellant in the case of Ram Naresh has not examined the language and effect of Statute 5(1) which has been quoted hereinabove. It is settled law that if the language of the Rule is simple, then no Rule of interpretation is required (Reference Chairman Indore Vikas Pradhikaran versus Pure Industrial Coke and Chemicals Ltd.; [(2007) 8 SCC 705 Pr.70].
Relevant paragraph of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chairman Indore Vikas Pradhikarn (supra) reads as follows:
"76. It is also well-settled that in the absence any context indicating a contrary intention, the same meaning sould be attached to the word used in the later as is given to them in the earlier statute. It is trite that the words or expression used in a statute before and after amendemnt should be given the same meaning. It is a settled law that when the legislature uses the same words in a similar connection, it is to be presumed that in the absence of any context indicating a contrary intetnion, the same meaning should attach to the words. [See Lehnhon v. gobson & Howes Ltd., 91919) AC 709 at 711, Craies on Statute Law, Seventh Edition, page 141 and G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation, Tenth edition, page 278]"
In view of the aforesaid, we are more than satisfied that the learned Single Judge erred in interpreting the Statute 5(1) as amended on 14.6.1999 in its proper perspective.
The judgment of the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside. The special appeal is allowed.
Order Date :- 30.8.2017 Ashish Pd.
Court No. - 10Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 202 of 2013 Appellant :- State Of U.P. And Others Respondent :- Sushil Kumar Mishra And Others Counsel for Appellant :- A.K. Roy, S.C. Counsel for Respondent :- V.B. Mishra,K.P. Pandey,Pankaj Barnwal Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.57937 of 2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Cause shown for delay in filing the present special appeal is to the satisfaction of the Court.
Delay is condoned. This application stands allowed. Office to allot regular number to the appeal.
Order Date :- 30.8.2017 Ashish Pd.