Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(i) Petitioners were appointed on compassionate ground between the year 2002 to 2003 as untrained teacher under Rule-5 of the U.P. Recruitment of dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "Dying in harness Rules") read with Government Order No.5193/15-05-2000-400(220)/99, dated 04.09.2000 (para-4) on a fixed pay. They completed the BTC training in August, 2005. Thereafter they are being paid salary as per regular pay-scale of Assistant Teachers.

Discussion and Findings:-

First Set of Writ Petitions-Compassionate Appointees:-

11. Undisputedly, the petitioners being dependants of deceased employees of U.P. Basic Education Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'), who died in harness, applied for appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules read with the G.O. dated 04.09.2000. They were appointed as untrained Assistant Teachers in Basic Schools on different dates prior to 01.04.2005 on fixed pay of Rs.2750/- per month. Immediately thereafter, they were sent for training in terms of the G.O. dated 04.09.2000. They completed their training after 01.04.2005 and thereafter they were duly appointed as Assistant Teachers in Basic Schools in regular pay scale.

12. According to the petitioners, since the date of their appointment as untrained Assistant Teachers was prior to 01.04.2005, therefore, they shall be governed by the Old Pension Scheme and unamended General Provident Fund (Uttar Pradehsh) Rules, 1985 and not by the new Pension Scheme and the amended General Provident Fund (Uttar Pradesh) Rules. The controversy is concluded by a judgment of Lucknow Bench of this Court in Ravindra Nath Taigor (supra) (paras 13 to 17), as under:

"13. The entire dispute runs around the interpretation of GO of 2000. Since the GO of 2000 is issued by the state government, exercising its power under section 13 of the Basic Education Act, the Board is bound by it. It is the said GO of 2000 by which petitioners were appointed. Clause 3(1) of the said GO provides that appointments under the Dying in Harness Rules shall be made as per the provisions of U.P. Dying in Harness Rules (5th Amendment) Rules, 1999 (The originally are U.P. Dying in Harness Rules 1974). The GO of 2000 itself provides the modification in the appointment process, as for appointment of assistant teachers in basic schools, along with education qualifications, B.T.C. training is also must. Thus, these appointments are made as per the Dying in Harness Rules 1974, as they stood amended/modified in the year 1999, subject to further amendment/modification provided by the GO of 2000. Clause-3(3) of the said GO of 2000 provides that the qualified applicants shall be entitled as per the post vacant at the district level and in case the posts are not available, supernumerary posts are to be created, as far as possible, within a period of three months from the date application is made for appointment under the said GO of 2000. Clause-3(4) provides that such dependents of the deceased employee, who on the date of application are having educational qualification on the post of assistant teachers but are not having training qualification, shall be given the benefit of appointment as untrained teachers, so far as possible, within a period of three months of their application. Such dependents of the deceased, after their appointment as untrained teacher, shall be given admission in the next batch, in the training institute of the concerned district, for B.T.C training. For getting a appointment in a primary school as Assistant Teacher, as a beneficiary of Dying in Harness Rules, they have to complete the B.T.C. training. During the said B.T.C. course, they would be paid fixed salary, as fixed by the Government from time to time. After passing their training course, they shall be given regular appointment as assistant teachers in a primary school on regular pay scale. The appointing authority and the district training institute were made responsible to ensure that the untrained teachers, on their being appointed under ''Dying in Harness Rules', are given training in the very next batch starting after their appointment. Any person failing to clear the said training examination would be given appointment as a Class-IV employee and his appointment as untrained teachers shall be automatically treated to have ended. The said Government Order was made effective from 08.01.1999.

7. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ravi Karan Singh has held that:
"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 Rules 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 Rules 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."