Allowed

Kripa Shankar Kashyap v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education and 4 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2024WRIA/219/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, appointed on compassionate basis under dying-in-harness rules and regularized in 2004, challenged rejection of his claim to substantive appointment benefits from the initial date of appointment. The court held compassionate appointments are substantive from inception, quashed the impugned order, and directed grant of consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 16.09.2023 quashed; opposite parties directed to provide all Class-IV substantive appointment benefits w.e.f. 16.08.2000 with consequential benefits within two months; no costs.

Kripa Shankar Kashyap vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:3574

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 219 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Kripa Shankar Kashyap Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Kumar,Nitesh Kumar Mishra

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rishabh Tripathi

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 3 to 5.

¶8

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 16.09.2023 whereby petitioner's representation for being treated as a substantively appointed employee and for such consequential benefits has been rejected.

¶9

Since from the impugned order itself it is evident with regard to grounds taken for rejection of petitioner's representation, this petition is being adjudicated upon at the admission stage itself without calling for a counter affidavit in view of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill versus Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others reported in A.I.R. 1978 SC 851.

¶10

As would be evident from the impugned order, petitioner was initially appointed on 16.08.2000 on compassionate basis under the relevant dying-in-harness rules. His services were thereafter regularized vide order dated 14.01.2004. The impugned order thereafter has rejected petitioner's representation for grant of consequential benefits as a substantively appointed employee w.e.f. 16.08.2000 only on the ground that his services have thereafter been regularized in 2004 and therefore it would not possible to grant benefits as a substantively appointed employee to petitioner since the initial date of appointment. The impugned order also refers to Government Order dated 30.01.1996 to deny benefits as sought by petitioner.

¶11

From a perusal of impugned order itself, it is evident that petitioner was initially appointed on 16.08.2000 on compassionate basis under the relevant dying-in-harness rules. The order states that his services were thereafter regularized on

¶12

14.01.2004.

¶13

A Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ravi Karan Singh versus State of U.P. and others (1999) 3 U.P.L.B.E.C. 2263 has already held that compassionate appointment made under the relevant dying-in-harness rules have a substantive nature and any appointee thereunder is deemed to be a substantively appointed employee from the date of initial appointment.

¶14

The said judgment has thereafter been considered with approval in the case of Itwari Lal Vs. State of U.P. , Writ Petition No. 5112 of 2014 (S/S) and has also considered the Government Order dated 30.01.1996 in its judgment and order dated 18.08.2015. It has been specifically held that the order dated 30.01.1996 is inapplicable in the case of compassionate appointments.

¶15

In view of aforesaid judgments, it is quite evident that twin grounds taken in the impugned orders are clearly against settled law.

¶16

It is therefore held that petitioner is a substantively appointed employee of the opposite parties w.e.f. 16.08.2000 and is therefore entitled to all the benefits of a substantively appointed employee on a Class-IV post. The fact that he was subsequently regularized in service on 14.01.2004 is completely irrelevant since there was no occasion to have regularized services of petitioner who even otherwise was substantively appointed employee from the initial date itself.

¶17

In view of discussion made hereinabove, the impugned order dated 16.09.2023 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari. A further writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to provide all benefits of a Class-IV post as available to a substantively appointed employee w.e.f. 16.08.2000 with consequential benefits except for promotion which may be seen in terms of relevant rules. Appropriate orders with regard to aforesaid shall be passed by the concerned authority within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produce before him.

¶18

Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own cost.

¶19

Order Date :- 12.1.2024 Satish

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kripa Shankar Kashyap v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kripa Shankar Kashyap v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arya Samaj,Lucknow Thru. Its Mantri/Secretary Dr. Anjali Tewari and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance,Lko. and 3 Others

Mohd. Salman Ansari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Minority Welfare and Waqf Section 3 U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Kusum Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Kiran Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Urban Development Lko. and 5 Others

Komal Chaurasiya vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy., Secondary Education. Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Committee of Management Azad Laghu Madhyamik Vidy. Thru. Its ,Manager Smt. Archana vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 2 Others