Subsisting approval for compassionate appointment cannot be rendered otiose by administrative refusal to pay consequential salary.

The petitioner’s husband, an Assistant Teacher at Kisan Vaidik Junior High School, died in harness on 15.06.2001.

On 01.08.2006, the petitioner was granted a compassionate appointment to a Class-IV post, which was approved by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA) on 06.09.2006.

The institution was later brought under the U.P. Junior High School (Payment of Salaries) Act, 1978, but the Assistant Director of Education raised objections regarding the legality of her appointment procedure.

A previous writ petition was dismissed, but in Special Appeal No. 898 of 2011, a Division Bench observed that there was no evidence that the post was unavailable or that the BSA’s approval was revoked, and directed the authorities to reconsider the claim.

Following this, the Director of Education rejected her representation via impugned orders dated 23.02.2021 and 08.03.2021, citing lack of sanctioned posts and failure to follow statutory recruitment rules.

1. Whether the administrative authorities could deny salary benefits while the original approval of appointment dated 06.09.2006 remained valid and unrevoked.

2. Whether the impugned orders were vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice and non-application of mind to the Division Bench’s directions.

3. Whether a candidate can be penalized for administrative lapses or delays attributable to the State authorities regarding compassionate appointments.

A citizen cannot be penalized for the negligence or inaction of the State.

Administrative orders must stand or fall on reasons recorded therein and cannot be supplemented later (Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner).

The construction of public orders must be based on their own contents (Commissioner of Police Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji).

Protection of eligible candidates from administrative delays (Asha Kaul v. State of Jammu & Kashmir).

The necessity of recording cogent reasons as an indispensable component of natural justice (Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan).

The Court found the respondents' reasoning legally unsustainable because the BSA's 2006 approval of the petitioner's appointment was never annulled; therefore, the State was estopped from withholding the consequential salary benefits.

The Court noted that the authorities failed to follow judicial discipline by reopening issues (such as post availability) already addressed by the Division Bench in the Special Appeal.

Furthermore, the Director of Education relied on reports from subordinate officers submitted after the hearing without giving the petitioner an opportunity to rebut them, violating the cardinal principles of natural justice and Article 14.

The Court highlighted that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate social welfare, and a hyper-technical interpretation of recruitment rules should not defeat this beneficial object.

Since the delay in processing the grant-in-aid was attributable to the State, the petitioner’s accrued rights could not be extinguished.

The petitioner cannot be deprived of salary so long as the approval order subsists.

The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned orders dated 23.02.2021 and 08.03.2021 were quashed.