Disposed

Gaya Prasad Dwivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2026WRIA/550/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against termination of an Assistant Teacher appointed under the Dying-in-Harness Rules despite his elder brother already receiving such appointment. The court found the enquiry report misleading and authorities' delay culpable, directing a senior officer to enquire into officials' conduct within three months.

What did the court decide?

Enquiry ordered by Additional Chief Secretary (or Secretary-rank officer) into officials' conduct 2012-2020; report due within three months; personal appearances exempted.

Gaya Prasad Dwivedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 550 of 2024

Gaya Prasad Dwivedi

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education U.P. Lko. And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anshuman Singh Rathore, Rajeev Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Durga Prasad Shukla, Ran Vijay Singh, Shailendra Singh Rajawat

¶9

Court No. - 18

¶10

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶11

1. Affidavit of deponent filed today by counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.

¶12

2. On 13.01.2026, the following order was passed:-

¶13

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.S. Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1, Sri Ran Vijay Singh,learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri Shailendra Singh Rajawat, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3, Sri Durga Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4 and perused the record.

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order of termination of the petitioner, who was appointed as Assistant Teacher in consonance with the provisions of The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereafter referred to as 'Rules, 1974') whereas some complaint was made in the year 2015 and the report was given by the Block Education Officer,Vidhan Sabha Khestra, Singhpur, District-Amethi on 15-10-2015 while mentioning that the appointment of the petitioner is as per the 'Rules,1974', amended uptill 2001, and there is no ambiguity or illegality in the same though without ascertaining the fact that the elder brother of the petitioner was already appointed in the year 1987 on the post of Assistant Teacher in furtherance to the 'Rules, 1974'.

¶15

It is an astonishing fact that how the report has been submitted by the Block Education Officer while justifying the appointment of the petitioner as observing lawful appointment ?

¶16

This court has also prima-facie taken note of the fact that though the initials are there, but, the name of the Block Education Officer has not been mentioned, which shows the deliberate effort of the Block Education Officer for submitting such report to create illusion before the District Basic Education Officer so that the order could be passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶17

List/put up this matter on 21-01-2026 at 02.15 P.M.

¶18

The then Block Education Officer/Enquiry Officer who submitted the report dated 1510-2015 and the District Basic Education Officer of the district concerned, shall

¶19

WRIA No. 550 of 2024

¶20

¶21

remain present before this court alongwith record on the said date.

¶22

The Block Education Officer concerned shall also file his personal affidavit on the said date that under what circumstances, the false report has been submitted before the District Basic Education Officer concerned."

¶23

3. In-compliance of the aforesaid, the District Basic Education Officer, Sanjay Tiwari and the then Block Education Officer/Enquiry Officer, Madhav Raj Tripathi, who submitted a report dated 15.10.2015, are present before this Court.

¶24

4. It is apparent that after the death of the deceased employee, Ramshankar Dwivedi, who was working as an Assistant Teacher in the Basic Education Department, the one of the son namely, Arjan Prashad Dwivedi was given appointment in year 1987. The death of the deceased employee occurred in the year 1981. After the aforesaid appointment, the younger brother has also claimed his appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules(hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 1974') on compassionate grounds and claimed the appointment, thereafter, he was also given appointment ignoring and concealing the facts that the elder brother has already been given appointment on compassionate grounds after the death of his father Late Ramashankar Dwivedi.

¶25

5. Once this fact came into knowledge of the authorities, an enquiry was instituted, wherein, a report was submitted by Block Education Officer, Madhav Raj Tripathi on 15.10.2015, wherein, he given his report in favour of the present petitioner ignoring the fact that the elder brother of the petitioner has already been appointed under the 'Rules 1974'. The report also reveals the exact reasons or the evidences are not discussed that what kind of concealment has been done by the elder son of the deceased employee, namely, Arjun Prashad Dwivedi, while being appointed as Assistant Teacher under Rule 1974.

¶26

6. This Court has also noticed in the earlier order that the Enquiry Officer/Block Education Officer who has submitted his report on 15.10.2015, but the name has not been mentioned over there.

¶27

WRIA No. 550 of 2024

¶28

¶29

7. The second set of fact which this Court has considered that the illegality came into the knowledge of the Educational Authorities in nut & shell on 15.10.2025 as the letter was written by the Block Education Officer/Enquiry Officer submitted its report, but no decision is taken for the last five years. The complaint was made in year 2012, whereafter, the chargesheet was issued in year 2015 i.e. after three years and subsequently, thereof, after five years, the Educational Authorities reaches to the conclusion that the appointment of the present petitioner is done, concealing the material facts. This is startling fact that after year 2012 to 2020, the Educational Authorities were kept on waiting for taking any action against the petitioner and in a lethargic way and also with view to provide the benefit of the petitioner, the matter was being kept on prolonging for about eight years.

¶30

8. The payment of salary to an employee is done from the tax paid on hard earned money of the tax-payers and adopting such view, cannot be appreciated, the educational authorities for long period of eight years did not conclude the enquiry proceedings which indicates otherwise intention of the Educational Authorities.

¶31

9. In this view of the matter, the Additional Chief Secretary, Basic Education, U.P., Lucknow is directed to hold an Enquiry by himself or by any authority not less than the rank of Secretary in the department, while associating those Educational Authorities/Officers working within the period of 2012 to 2020 and submit a report before this Court, within period of three months.

¶32

10. List this matter after three months.

¶33

11. The personal appearance of District Basic Education Officer, Sanjay Tiwari and the then Block Education Officer/Enquiry Officer, Madhav Raj Tripathi, is hereby exempted.

¶34

January 21, 2026

¶35

Mayank

¶36

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶37

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gaya Prasad Dwivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaya Prasad Dwivedi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education U.P. Lko. and 2 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Suman Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education U.P. Lko. and 6 Others

Mohammad Hammad Thru. Guardian Mother Nida Dawar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Kadirul vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Nitu Singh and 60 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 7 Others

Dinesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Section Lko. and 3 Others

Anjali Nigam vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Finance New Delhi and 2 Others