Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (1.09 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Pradeep Kumar & Others vs State Of U.P.& Others on 4 July, 2016
6.2 He also relies on the Single Bench decision of Allahabad High
Court in Praveen Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others in WRIT - A No.6719 of
2023 decided on 02.08.2023, wherein reliance was placed on the Larger
Bench decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Ravi Karan Singh vs.
State of U.P. and others [1999 (3) UPLBEC 2263], Pradeep Kumar and 6
others vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ-A No.6717 of 2018 decided on
13.12.2019 and Asif Khan vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ-A No.15205 of
2022 decided on 23.09.2022. In all these cases it has been held that an
appointment under the dying in harness rules has to be treated as a
permanent appointment, otherwise if such appointment if treated to be a
temporary appointment, then it will follow that soon after the appointment
5 934_WP_15518_2025_Jd
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 a bread earner. It has
been further held that the appointment under dying in harness rule is a
permanent appointment and not a temporary appointment. He, therefore,
submits that the petitioner's appointment on compassionate ground was
towards a permanent post and, therefore, even while giving appointment
order the Management has given pay scale. The said ought to have been
considered at the time of approval of the services of the petitioner.
7 Learned AGP for the respondents has submitted that by
Government Resolution dated 25.11.2005 the appointments and the
conditions of service in private schools in the State were regulated and it is
said as regards the honorarium to the non teaching staff in a school would be
on honorarium, when it is temporary/on probation. Therefore, no fault can
be found with the order that has been passed by respondent No.4.
Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 March, 2011
8.1 In Bhavani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India and others [(2011)
4 SCC 209] it has been observed that -
Sanjai Kumar vs Dy. Director General (Nce), ... on 16 July, 2002
9 In Sanjai Kumar vs. Deputy Director General (NCE), Directorate,
U.P., Lucknow and others [(2002) 3 UPLBEC 2748] and Ram Chandra vs.
State of U.P. and others [2008(2) ESC 1053] which has been referred in the
Division Bench of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Jagdish Narain vs. Union
of India, Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.4059 of 2003 decided on
14.07.2011, wherein it has been held that the appointment on compassionate
ground is always permanent in nature. Therefore, taking into consideration
the fact that the petitioner came to be appointed on compassionate ground
which is in common parlance against the post that was held by his father on
9 934_WP_15518_2025_Jd
permanent basis, then he cannot be considered on probation. It is not his
regular recruitment and, therefore, the Government Resolution dated
25.11.2005 applicable to the regular recruited employees will not be made
applicable. It is not in dispute that after the approval dated 21.06.2022 the
petitioner is getting salary by pay scale. Therefore, the question was in
respect of period in between 17.01.2018 to 16.01.2021. For that purpose in
view of the above said pronouncements and the findings of this Court that
the petitioner's appointment was against the permanent post, the petitioner is
entitled to get salary in pay scale since the date of his appointment i.e.
17.01.2018. Therefore, the impugned order dated 21.06.2022 by respondent
No.4 deserves to be set aside.
Ram Chandra Mawa Lal And Others Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others Etc on 9 January, 1984
9 In Sanjai Kumar vs. Deputy Director General (NCE), Directorate,
U.P., Lucknow and others [(2002) 3 UPLBEC 2748] and Ram Chandra vs.
State of U.P. and others [2008(2) ESC 1053] which has been referred in the
Division Bench of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Jagdish Narain vs. Union
of India, Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.4059 of 2003 decided on
14.07.2011, wherein it has been held that the appointment on compassionate
ground is always permanent in nature. Therefore, taking into consideration
the fact that the petitioner came to be appointed on compassionate ground
which is in common parlance against the post that was held by his father on
9 934_WP_15518_2025_Jd
permanent basis, then he cannot be considered on probation. It is not his
regular recruitment and, therefore, the Government Resolution dated
25.11.2005 applicable to the regular recruited employees will not be made
applicable. It is not in dispute that after the approval dated 21.06.2022 the
petitioner is getting salary by pay scale. Therefore, the question was in
respect of period in between 17.01.2018 to 16.01.2021. For that purpose in
view of the above said pronouncements and the findings of this Court that
the petitioner's appointment was against the permanent post, the petitioner is
entitled to get salary in pay scale since the date of his appointment i.e.
17.01.2018. Therefore, the impugned order dated 21.06.2022 by respondent
No.4 deserves to be set aside.
Laxmi Narain Jagdish Saran Kanya Inter ... vs State Of U.P. And Ors. [Alongwith Civil ... on 4 March, 2004
9 In Sanjai Kumar vs. Deputy Director General (NCE), Directorate,
U.P., Lucknow and others [(2002) 3 UPLBEC 2748] and Ram Chandra vs.
State of U.P. and others [2008(2) ESC 1053] which has been referred in the
Division Bench of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Jagdish Narain vs. Union
of India, Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.4059 of 2003 decided on
14.07.2011, wherein it has been held that the appointment on compassionate
ground is always permanent in nature. Therefore, taking into consideration
the fact that the petitioner came to be appointed on compassionate ground
which is in common parlance against the post that was held by his father on
9 934_WP_15518_2025_Jd
permanent basis, then he cannot be considered on probation. It is not his
regular recruitment and, therefore, the Government Resolution dated
25.11.2005 applicable to the regular recruited employees will not be made
applicable. It is not in dispute that after the approval dated 21.06.2022 the
petitioner is getting salary by pay scale. Therefore, the question was in
respect of period in between 17.01.2018 to 16.01.2021. For that purpose in
view of the above said pronouncements and the findings of this Court that
the petitioner's appointment was against the permanent post, the petitioner is
entitled to get salary in pay scale since the date of his appointment i.e.
17.01.2018. Therefore, the impugned order dated 21.06.2022 by respondent
No.4 deserves to be set aside.
Sagar Yashwant Mene vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 11 August, 2021
5 Heard learned Advocate Mr. K.V. Patil for petitioner and learned
AGP Miss. Neha B. Kamble for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
6 The learned Advocate for petitioner relies on the decision of this
Court in Shri. Sagar Yashwant Mene vs. The State of Maharashtra and others
4 934_WP_15518_2025_Jd
in Writ Petition No.589 of 2021 decided at the Principal Seat on 11.08.2021,
wherein it is held that there was no bar of any Government Resolution
preventing the Management to make appointment on compassionate ground
and it is held that the Government Resolution dated 28.01.2019 cannot be
made applicable retrospectively.
Praveen Kumar vs State Of U.P on 7 May, 2015
6.2 He also relies on the Single Bench decision of Allahabad High
Court in Praveen Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others in WRIT - A No.6719 of
2023 decided on 02.08.2023, wherein reliance was placed on the Larger
Bench decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Ravi Karan Singh vs.
State of U.P. and others [1999 (3) UPLBEC 2263], Pradeep Kumar and 6
others vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ-A No.6717 of 2018 decided on
13.12.2019 and Asif Khan vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ-A No.15205 of
2022 decided on 23.09.2022. In all these cases it has been held that an
appointment under the dying in harness rules has to be treated as a
permanent appointment, otherwise if such appointment if treated to be a
temporary appointment, then it will follow that soon after the appointment
5 934_WP_15518_2025_Jd
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 a bread earner. It has
been further held that the appointment under dying in harness rule is a
permanent appointment and not a temporary appointment. He, therefore,
submits that the petitioner's appointment on compassionate ground was
towards a permanent post and, therefore, even while giving appointment
order the Management has given pay scale. The said ought to have been
considered at the time of approval of the services of the petitioner.
7 Learned AGP for the respondents has submitted that by
Government Resolution dated 25.11.2005 the appointments and the
conditions of service in private schools in the State were regulated and it is
said as regards the honorarium to the non teaching staff in a school would be
on honorarium, when it is temporary/on probation. Therefore, no fault can
be found with the order that has been passed by respondent No.4.
Asif Khan Alias Sonu vs State Of U.P . on 14 September, 2015
6.2 He also relies on the Single Bench decision of Allahabad High
Court in Praveen Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others in WRIT - A No.6719 of
2023 decided on 02.08.2023, wherein reliance was placed on the Larger
Bench decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Ravi Karan Singh vs.
State of U.P. and others [1999 (3) UPLBEC 2263], Pradeep Kumar and 6
others vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ-A No.6717 of 2018 decided on
13.12.2019 and Asif Khan vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ-A No.15205 of
2022 decided on 23.09.2022. In all these cases it has been held that an
appointment under the dying in harness rules has to be treated as a
permanent appointment, otherwise if such appointment if treated to be a
temporary appointment, then it will follow that soon after the appointment
5 934_WP_15518_2025_Jd
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 a bread earner. It has
been further held that the appointment under dying in harness rule is a
permanent appointment and not a temporary appointment. He, therefore,
submits that the petitioner's appointment on compassionate ground was
towards a permanent post and, therefore, even while giving appointment
order the Management has given pay scale. The said ought to have been
considered at the time of approval of the services of the petitioner.
7 Learned AGP for the respondents has submitted that by
Government Resolution dated 25.11.2005 the appointments and the
conditions of service in private schools in the State were regulated and it is
said as regards the honorarium to the non teaching staff in a school would be
on honorarium, when it is temporary/on probation. Therefore, no fault can
be found with the order that has been passed by respondent No.4.