Dismissed

Agya Ram Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2019SPLA/1874/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal (Special Appeal) by an appellant against the dismissal of a writ petition. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the single judge's view that compassionate appointment benefits are limited to grant-in-aid institutions.

What did the court decide?

The special appeal was dismissed, and the impugned judgment of the Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No. 60265 of 2008 was upheld.

Agya Ram Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1874 of 2008

¶4

Appellant :- Agya Ram Chaudhary Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- A.C. Srivastava,Amarjeet Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Uma Nath Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Akhilesh Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for appellant and learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Shiv Ram, Advocate holding brief of Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for respondents.

¶7

This appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has arisen from judgment and order dated 21.11.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 60265 of 2008. The writ petition has been dismissed on the ground that petitioner's father died on 18.10.2008 and at that time Institution in question was not in grant-in-aid list, therefore, Regulations 101 to 107, Chapter III of Regulations framed under Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1921”) are not applicable as the same is applicable only to such Institutions which are in grant-in-aid list.

¶8

Regulation 103, Chapter III of Regulations reads as under:

¶9

“103. Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations, where any teacher or employee of ministerial grade of any recognized, aided institution, who is appointed accordingly with prescribed procedure, died during service period, then one member of his family, who is not less than eighteen years in age, can be appointed on the post of teacher in trained graduate grade or on any ministerial post, if he possesses prescribed requisite academic qualifications, training eligibilities, if any, and he is

¶10

¶11

otherwise fit for appointment:

¶12

Provided that anything contained in this regulation would not apply to any recognized aided institution established and administered by any minority class.

¶13

Explanation—For the purpose of this regulation “member of the family” means widow or widower, son, unmarried or widowed daughter of the deceased employee.

¶14

Note—This regulation and Regulations 104 to 107 would apply in relation to those employees who have died on or after 1 January, 1981.”

¶15

Learned counsel for appellant submitted that term “recognized institution” should be read separately than the grant-in-aid but submission of learned counsel for appellant is not acceptable for the reason that every recognized institution is not in grant-in-aid. If the rule framing authority wanted to confer benefit to teaching and non-teaching staff of all recognized institution, there was no necessity of adding words “grant-in-aid” and use of these words clearly show that intention was to be give benefit of compassionate appointment only to such recognized institution which are in the list of grant-in-aid and not to all.

¶16

In view thereof, we find no manifest error in the judgment of learned Single Judge warranting interference in this appeal.

¶17

Dismissed accordingly.

¶18

Order Date :- 11.3.2019 Akram/AK

Agya Ram Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Agya Ram Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nasrin Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Mamta Shahi and Another Vs the Union of India and 5 Others

Satyam Gupta Vs Union of India and 3 Others

M/S New Victoria Mills and Others Vs Shri Kant Arya

Chairman/M.D. Uco Bank and Others Vs Ashish Agarwal

Anil Kumar Rana Vs State of U P and 2 Others