Management Of Institution Is Not Authorized To Recommend Compassionate Appointment Where Deceased Employee Was Working: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court held that the management of the institution is not authorized to recommend any compassionate appointment where the deceased employee was working.

The Court held thus in a Writ Petition filed by a man seeking direction of commanding the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS) to grant approval to his appointment as a Clerk with the Institution made by the Management under the Dying-in-Rules.

A Single Bench of Justice J.J. Munir observed, “The entire scheme of Regulations 104-107 of Chapter III of the Regulations framed under the Act of 1921 does not at all authorize the management of the institution, where the employee, who died in harness, was working, to recommend any compassionate appointment, much less make it and afterwards seek approval of the District Inspector of Schools, as done in the present case. The procedure envisaged under Regulations 104-107 has to be followed for such an appointment to be made, where the management and the principal of the institution have no role, except to comply with the instructions of the District Inspector of Schools, in turn issued, on the basis of the recommendations of the concerned Committee.”

Advocate Sudeep Dwivedi appeared for the Petitioner while Advocate Saurabh Tiwari appeared for the Respondents.

In this case, the Institution was managed by the Nagar Palika Parishad and was governed by the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regulations framed thereunder as also Government Orders issued from time to time. Payments of salaries to teachers and other employees working with the Institution were made under the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971. The Petitioner’s father was peon over there and died in harness in the year 2023. The Petitioner being the deceased employee’s son applied for appointment against a suitable post.

There were three posts of clerks sanctioned for the Institution, out of which two were occupied with incumbent working thereagainst and there was a vacancy of one due to another person’s services being terminated by the Management in 2008. The said Order was under challenge before the High Court. There was no Interim Order granted in the said case and that person was scheduled to superannuate in the year 2026 and the post was vacant since the year 2009. The Petitioner being eligible for the Clerk post, was considered for compassionate appointment and was then appointed by the Institution’s Manager. Due to inaction in the matter of grant of approval to his appointment, he was before the High Court.

The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, noted, “… the DIOS should have proceeded under Regulation 105 and after collecting necessary particulars relating to the petitioner, caused it to be laid before the Committee under Regulation 104, of which he is himself the Chairman. Sadly, he did not do that. When he received the letter of appointment for approval etc. from the Institution along with papers, he found faults with it on the ground that the petitioner had not been subjected to the necessary typing test for ascertainment of his speed, and on that ground refused approval and sent the matter to the Management vide his order dated 22.08.2024.”

The Court added that the sole direction in that Order, that is sound, is that the DIOS has required, towards the tail-end of the Order, the Manager of the Institution to act in accordance with the instructions of the Joint Director of Education carried in his memo.

“This would oblige the Manager to report on the necessary particulars about the deceased to the DIOS. As soon as the Manager would do that, the obligation of the DIOS under Regulations 104 and 105 would commence. For judging the suitability of the petitioner for appointment to a Class-III post, it would be the Committee constituted under Regulation 105, who would have to undertake the necessary exertions. If it involves a typing test, it is for them to ensure it. However, this is with the remark that passing the typing test at the time of initial recruitment, even if the requisite typing speed is not there, is not a precondition”, it further said.

The Court observed that there is complete provision for the purpose made in Regulation 101 (1) of the Regulations of Chapter III framed under the Act of 1921 and the District Level Committee would do well to bear that in mind, so far as the Petitioner's case goes.

“The petitioner has a right to be considered for compassionate appointment, but cannot be granted relief in the terms that he has prayed. The relief would have to be suitably moulded to give effect to the petitioner’s rights, otherwise well-founded”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and issued a Mandamus to the Institution’s Manager.

Cause Title- Satish Chandra v. State of U.P. and 4 Others (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:190551)

Click here to read/download the Judgment