Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4056 of 2019 Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jay Singh Yadav,Satish Chandra Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranesh Dutt Tripathi
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
While entertaining the writ petition following orders were passed on 26.3.2019:-
"Heard Sri Satish Chandra Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R. K. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1 and Mr. P. D. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3.
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.4.2018 issued by the Incharge, District Basic Education Officer, Bareilly, which is appended as annexure 2 to the writ petition.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned has been passed stopping the payment of retiral dues of the petitioner without providing any notice or opportunity to the petitioner. It is further contended that the aforesaid order has been passed after the retirement of the petitioner.
The matter requires consideration.
Counter affidavit be filed by all the respondents within six weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks' thereafter.
List in the first week of July, 2019."
A counter affidavit has been filed stating that after death of petitioner's father on 6.11.1983 more than one person has been granted compassionate appointment.
Perusal of the records would go to show that petitioner was offered compassionate appointment on 20.1.1987. He was allowed to continue in service and has continuously received salary. Petitioner has also attained the age of superannuation on 31.3.2018. For a period of more than 31 years while petitioner remained in employment no issue was ever raised about validity of petitioner's appointment on the ground that more than one person has been offered compassionate appointment. It would be too late in the day for the respondents to stop payment of retiral benefits now only because a complaint has been received. No justification whatsoever has been placed before the Court to reopen the issue after such long lapse of time. The plea of petitioner that opportunity of hearing has also not been given to the petitioner has not been disputed.
In that view of the matter, the order impugned dated 23.4.2018 cannot be sustained and is quashed. Petitioner would be entitled to receive retiral benefits, in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
Writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 Ashok Kr.