Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 41281 of 2015 Petitioner :- Niranjan Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Singh Kaushik,Kshitij Shailendra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashutosh Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner challenges the validity of an order of 22 December 2014 pursuant to which his prayer for appointment on compassionate grounds has come to be refused with the respondent taking the view that since his father has submitted an application for voluntary retirement prior to his demise, he would be deemed to have not been in service on the day when he passed away. The father of the petitioner is stated to have submitted an application for voluntary retirement on 31 December 2009. He died on 07 September 2010. The petitioner moved an application for being accorded appointment on compassionate basis on 12 April 2013. It is on the consideration of the aforesaid application that the impugned order has come to be passed.
Sri Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions made in the Government Order of 24 June 1983 which lays down a detailed procedure for the disposal of applications for voluntary retirement. The procedure prescribed in that Government Order insofar as it is relevant for the purposes of disposal of the instant petition is extracted hereinbelow:-
''2. यह ससववधध वनमन पवतबनधध कक अधधन पदधन कक जध रहध हहह-
पतयकक वशकक/ कररचधरध, जज सवकचछध सक सकवध वनववत कक वतथथ कक कर सक कर तधन रधह पपवर इस आशय कध थलथखत पधथरनध- पत दकगध। 3. पबनध सवरवत इस आशय कध पसतधव पधररत करकक समबननधत थजलध ववदधलय वनरधकक/ रणडलधय बधथलकध ववदधलय वनरधवककध कज भकजकगध वक आवकदक कररचधरध कज कथथत वदनधनक सक सकवध रसक वकयक जधनक रम उसक आपथत नहध ह। थजलध ववदधलय वनरधकक/ रणडलधय बधथलकध ववदधलय वनरधककध दधरध तदनससधर आवकदक कक सकवध वनववत हजनक कक आशय कध आदकश पसधररत वकयध जधयकगध।"
The procedure as prescribed in that Government Order has been reiterated in the order of 08 April 2015.
From the provisions made in that order, Sri Shailendra rightly contends that the proposal and prayer for voluntary retirement would have required a specific approval by the District Inspector of Schools before it could be recognised as having come into effect. This is evident from the provisions made in paragraph 3 of the Government Order extracted above which unambiguously requires the publication of the order that may be passed by the DIOS on the application for voluntary retirement. Viewed in that backdrop, it is manifest that the stand of the State that once the application for voluntary retirement had been duly forwarded by the Committee of Management, it would be deemed to have been accepted and come into effect would not sustain.
Accordingly, the writ petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order 22 December 2014 is hereby quashed. The respondents shall duly evaluate the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds afresh and in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 22.9.2021 Vivek Kr.