Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PREM PAL SINGH versus BASIC SHIKSHA PARISHAD

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Prem Pal Singh v. Basic Shiksha Parishad - WRIT - A No. 1939 of 1992 [2007] RD-AH 3420 (28 February 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 31

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1939 of 1992

Prem Pal Singh Vs. Basic Shiksha Parishad

                                  U.P. Allahabad and others.

Hon'ble D.P. Singh, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.R. Maurya for the Basic Shiksha Parishad and the learned Standing Counsel for other respondents.

This petition is directed against an order dated 27.12.1991 by which the services of the petitioner has been dispensed with.

The father of the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in the Primary Pathshala run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad when he died in harness on 8.6.1978. The petitioner claimed compassionate appointment and in spite of the letters of the Secretary dated 29.12.1078, and 14.1.1981, his claim was not considered. However, vide an order dated 10.11.1983 the petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the office of the Shiksha Adhikari, in pursuance of which he joined. It is further pleaded that thereafter he was confirmed and promoted. However, a notice dated 9/10.4.1991 was served on the petitioner to show cause why his services be not terminated and the money paid to him recovered because he had misled the authorities in granting the appointment in spite of the fact that his brother Arjun Singh was already employed with the Board. The petitioner filed reply to the said notice vide his letter dated 20.11.1991 and in pursuance thereof the present impugned order has been passed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that Arjun Singh, his brother was appointed by following the relevant Recruitment Rules and was not granted compassionate appointment and, therefore, his appointment was valid.

Assuming that the appointment of Arjun Singh, the brother of the petitioner, was not on compassionate grounds, but it is admitted by the petitioner that he was appointed on 4.4.1983. The object for granting compassionate appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules is to give immediate succour to the bereaved family whose sole bread winner dies in penury and to fulfill this object the rigours of Recruitment Rules have been relaxed to give compassionate appointment to one member of the family. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner died in June 1978 while his brother Arjun Singh was appointed on 4.4.1983. Since one member of the family of the deceased was already in employment, the petitioner could not have been appointed on compassionate ground on 10.11.1983. It has to be kept in mind that this exception to the Recruitment Rules has been carved out only to lend a helping hand to the bereaved family but once it is found as a matter of fact that a member of the family was already gainfully employed, whether on compassionate basis or otherwise, the right to be considered for compassionate appointment to another member of the family extinguishes.

No doubt the contention that since the petitioner is confirmed employee the respondents ought to have held a proper domestic enquiry, has some force, but on the facts of this case, it is apparent that even according to the petitioner his brother was in employment when he was appointed and this fact he ought to have disclosed before his appointment. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner did not know about the appointment of Arjun Singh at the time of his appointment. Even otherwise, the quashing of the present order would result in replacing it by another illegal order and, therefore, in spite of an arguable case, the Court can refuse interference under its discretionary power.

For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.

Dt: 28.2.2007.

AU/AK


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.