Allahabad High Court
SHITALA PRASAD GUPT AND 15 OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The writ petition was disposed of without adjudicating the merits, directing the petitioners to make fresh representations before the respondent.
Summary
Sixteen petitioners, appointed on compassionate grounds in the Uttar Pradesh education service, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to recognize their substantive appointment date as 10 March 2005 and to award the corresponding pay scale and arrears, instead of the date of 10 May 2005 recorded by the government. They also sought a certiorari to quash an order dated 15 January 2007 issued by the District Basic Education Officer (DBEO) in response to their earlier representation. The petitioners argued that the date of substantive appointment should be fixed at the completion of training, as per the relevant Government Order, and that the DBEO’s order was illegal. The respondents contended that any fresh representation by the petitioners would be considered expeditiously. The Court, without expressing an opinion on the merits, dismissed the writ and directed the petitioners to file fresh individual applications before the DBEO within three weeks, with a further order to be pronounced within six weeks. No costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether the date of substantive appointment for employees appointed on compassionate grounds should be fixed as the date of training completion (10‑03‑2005) for purposes of pay and benefits.
- Whether the order dated 15‑01‑2007 issued by the District Basic Education Officer can be quashed by a writ of certiorari.
Subjects
- compassionate appointment
- substantive appointment date
- pay scale arrears
- mandamus
- certiorari
- administrative law
- representation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15289 of 2026
Shitala Prasad Gupt And 15 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhinav Singh, Ajeet Kumar Shukla,
Anirudh Pratap Singh, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Tej Bhan Singh
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the
State, Mr. Tej Bhan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent BSA and
perused the record.
The petitioners, who are 16 in number, have preferred the instant writ
petition with the following prayers:
"a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 2 to 4 to
treat the petitioner's date of substantive appointment w.e.f. 10.03.2005 and pay the trained pay scale w.e.f.
10.03.2005 and pay the arrears as well as revised pay scale w.e.f. 10.03.2005 in place of 10.05.2005 and
other consequential benefits which are entitled by the petitioners.
b). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated
15.01.2007 issued by the respondent no.3 in pursuant to letter No. बे०शि०प०/380-4125/2006-7, issued by
the respondent no.2 (Annexure Nos. 1 to this writ petition) respectively."
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were
appointed on compassionate ground and the date of substantive appointment
is taken to be the date after completion of the training in view of the relevant
Government Order. He further submits that the date of substantive
appointment should be the date on which the petitioners have been appointed
on compassionate ground and the same cannot be shifted. In this regard the
petitioners have given representation before the respondent no. 3, therefore,
a direction may be issued to the decide the same.
Learned counsel for the respondent BSA submits that in case the petitioners
move fresh representations, same will be decided expeditiously.
WRIA No. 15289 of 2026
2
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case but without expressing
any opinion on the merits of the case set up on behalf of the petitioners, the
present writ petition is disposed of by providing that the petitioners may
make fresh application/representation, individually, ventilating all their
grievances, supported by such documents, as may be advised, before the
respondent no.3 – District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur, within three
weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order. On such
representation being made, respondent no.3 shall make all endeavours to
consider and decide the same, strictly in accordance with law, by means of a
reasoned and speaking order, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to
the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a
period of six weeks thereafter, if there is no legal impediment.
No order as to costs.
October 1, 2026
DS
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
DIGAMBER SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…