News - 6 हफ्ते में सेक्रेटरी शिक्षका के मिड सेशन में ट्रांसफर का निर्णय लें, पिटीशनर बेसिक शिक्षिका के प्रत्यावेदन पर सचिव ने कोई जवाब नहीं दिया था -

 News - 6 हफ्ते में सेक्रेटरी शिक्षका के मिड सेशन में ट्रांसफर का निर्णय लें, पिटीशनर बेसिक शिक्षिका के प्रत्यावेदन पर सचिव ने कोई जवाब नहीं दिया था - 



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH 

?Court No. - 23 

Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 6198 of 2018 

Petitioner :- Nupur Agnihotri 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Basic Edu.Deptt. Lucknow & Anr. 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Pathak 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar 

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 
Heard Sri S.K. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajay Kumar for opposite-parties no. 2 and 3. Notice on behalf of opposite-party no.1 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing Counsel. 
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief- 
"A writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the opposite-party no.2 to take an immediate decision in the matter of the petitioner for transferring her to any other school looking to the facts of the case as the opposite-party no.3 has also made reference to him on 3.11.2017 and also take a decision with regard to providing the salary to the petitioner from 26.9.2017 to till date." 
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court towards the letter dated 3.11.2017 which is contained in Annexure-11 to the writ petition whereby District Basic Education Officer has apprised the petitioner that her representation for seeking transfer in the mid session has been sent to the Secretary, Board of Basic Education, Allahabad as he is the competent authority. The Basic Education Officer, Hardoi has also sent letter to the Secretary, Board of U.P. Education, Allahabad which is Annexure No. 12 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Secretary has not yet passed any order on the representation of the petitioner and ends of justice would suffice that if the Secretary is directed to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner.
Therefore, without entering into the merit of the issue, it is hereby provided that the petitioner may prefer fresh representation to the Secretary, Basic Education, Allahabad including all relevant documents which are necessary for disposal on the issue in question, within 10 days. If such representation is preferred by the Secretary, the Secretary, Basic Education, Allahabad shall pass appropriate order on the representation of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law with speaking and reasoned order expeditiously, say, within a period of six weeks, from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 
In view of the aforesaid term, the writ petition is disposed of finally. 
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 
VB/- 



 UPTET  / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates /   Teacher Recruitment  / शिक्षक भर्ती /  SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS  
UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
 Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825  Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825  Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825  Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825  Teacher Recruitment  Uptet News Hindi | 72825  Teacher Recruitment  Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,

CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET  ,
Rajasthan TET /  RTET,  BETET / Bihar TET,   PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET
 

News - सैकड़ों बेसिक शिक्षकों ने पुरानी पेंशन हाई कोर्ट में केस कर जीती, यू पी सरकार का 15.11.2011 का G.O रद्द हुआ -

 News - सैकड़ों बेसिक शिक्षकों ने पुरानी पेंशन हाई कोर्ट में केस कर जीती, यू पी सरकार का 15.11.2011 का G.O रद्द हुआ -




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH 

A.F.R. 

Reserved On:-30.01.2018 
Delivered On:28.02.2018 


Court No.-19 


1. Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 7762 of 2017 
Petitioner :- Ravindra Nath Taigor 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy.Basic Edu.Civil Sectt.Lko. & Ors. 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Gopesh Tripathi 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rahul Shukla 

Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J. 


1. This bunch of writ petitions is filed by petitioners praying for quashing of Government Order dated 15.11.2011 issued by the State Government and for directions commanding opposite parties to treat petitioners covered by the old pension scheme and not to cover them under the new pension scheme introduced in the year 2005. 
2. The facts of the case are short and simple. Petitioners, being dependents of employees of U.P. Basic Education Board (hereinafter Board) who died in harness, applied for appointment under the dying in harness policy, put in place by the Government Order dated 04.09.2000 (hereinafter GO of 2000). They all were appointed on different dates prior to the year 2005. The said appointments were made on the fixed pay of Rs.2750/- per month. Since appointment as a Assistant Teacher in a Basic School requires a mandatory training of B.T.C., they were immediately sent for training. Petitioners could complete the said training after the year 2005 and, thereafter, they were duly appointed as Assistant Teachers in Basic Schools and are since working as Assistant Teachers on regular pay scale. 
3. It was in the year 2005 only (more specifically w.e.f. 01.04.2005) that by a notification the General Provident Fund Rules were amended and dispensed with and new defined contribution pension scheme was brought into force and thus the old pension scheme was dispensed with. The dispute is as to whether petitioners would be covered by the old pension scheme or it is the new defined contribution pension scheme which would be applicable on the petitioners. 
4. The controversy involves two sets of rules. First being the Pension and Provident Fund Rules and other being appointment and service rules, applicable on the assistant teachers of the Board run Basic Schools, from time to time. Lets first go through the applicability of pension rules. 
5. In Uttar Pradesh, for the purpose of the employees of the Board, a separate Provident Fund Rules, namely, U.P. Basic Education Provident Fund Rules, 1975 were notified. The said rules were framed in exercise of power under Section 19(1) of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 (hereinafter Basic Education Act). The said Rules were applicable to every employee, who was either appointed by the Board or was transferred to the Board, as per the provisions of the Basic Education Act. On 08.03.1978, a Government Order was issued, whereby, a long pending demand of basic education teachers, for payment of pension at par with the state government employees, was considered and accepted. The said government order dated 08.03.1978 (hereinafter GO of 1978) modified/replaced the old contributory provident fund scheme applicable, by the General Provident Fund Scheme as was applicable on the state government employees. It provided that all basic education teachers appointed by the Board, who retired on 01.03.1977 or would be retiring thereafter, shall be paid pension at the same rate on which the Government school teachers, at par with them, were being paid and its computation was also to be done in the same manner as done with regard to the government employees. The said GO of 1978 provided an option, to the basic school teachers appointed prior to 01.03.1977, to opt for the new scheme. While teachers appointed after 01.03.1977 by the Board were not required to give any option and the General Provident Fund scheme was made applicable on them. For convenience the said Government Order is being quoted below:- 
la[;k% 5197@15¼5½&79@77 
isz"kd] 
Jh vt; 'kadj 
mi lfpo] 
mRrj izns'k 'kklu 

lsok esa] 
f'k{kk funs'kd ,oa v/;{;] 
mRrj izns'k csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn~ 
ihjiqj gkml] fryd ekxZ] y[kuÅA 

f'k{kk¼5½ vuqHkkx y[kuÅ% fnukad 8 ekpZ] 1978 

fo"k;% mRrj izns'k csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn~ }kjk lapkfyr Ldwyksa ds f'k{kdksa ds lsok fuo`Rr ykHkksa esa ifjorZuA 

egksn;] 
eq>s vkils ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd mRrj izns'k csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn~ }kjk lapkfyr izkbejh ,oa twfu;j gkbZ Ldwyksa ds f'k{kdksa dks tks ykHk=;h ;kstuk ls vuq'kkflr gSa orZeku fu;eksa ds v/khu tks lsok fuo`fRrd ykHk miyC/k gSa os jktdh; deZpkfj;ksa dks vuqeU; isa'ku vkfn ls vR;Yi gSa] ftlls os xr dqN le; ls ;g ekax dj jgs Fks fd mudh lsok fuo`fRrd ykHk bl izdkj Lohd`r fd;s tk;sa fd mUgsa jkT; deZpkfj;ksa dks vuqeU; nj ij isa'ku izkIr dj ldsaA bl fo"k; ij lE;adYi ls fopkjksijkUr 'kklu us ;g fu.kZ; fy;k gS fd 1 ekpZ]1997 dks ;k mlds i'pkr~ lsok fuo`Rr gq;s ;k lsok fuo`Rr gksus okys mDr fo|ky;ksa ds leLr LFkkbZ iw.kZdkfyd rFkk fu;fer f'k{kdksa dks mlh nj ij isa'ku ns; gksxh] ftl nj ij jktdh; fo|ky;ksa ds leku Lrj ,oa Js.kh ds f'k{kdksa dks vuqeU; gS rFkk mldk vkx.ku Hkh jktdh; deZpkfj;ksa ds fy;s ykxw izfdz;k ds vuqlkj fd;k tk;sxkA jkT; deZpkfj;ksa dks vuqeU; isa'ku dh njsa layXud&1 esa vafdr gSA ;g fu.kZ; fuEufyf[kr izfrcU/kksa ds v/khu gSa& 

¼1½ f'k{kdksa dks MsFk&de&fjVk;jesaV&xzsP;qfV ;k e`R;q ds i'pkr~ muds vkfJrksa dks ikfjokfjd isa'ku ns; ugha gksxhA 
¼2½ lkewfgd thou chek ;kstuk dk ykHk mUgsa iwoZor~ feyrk jgsxkA 

3½ bu f'k{kdksa ij ykxw orZeku mRrj izns'k csfld f'k{kk Hkfo"; fuf/k fu;ekoyh] 1957 ds v/khu va'knk;h Hkfo"; fuf/k ;kstuk ds LFkku ij 1 ekpZ 1977 ls lkekU; Hkfo"; fuokZg fuf/k ;kstuk ykxw gksxh vkSj bl ;kstuk ds v/khu muds osru ls Hkfo"; fuokZg fuf/k dh dVkSrh jkT; deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, ykxw nj ls dh tk;sxh tks lEizfr ewy osru dk 10% gS vkSj mUgsa csfld f'k{kk ifj"knh; va'knku ds :i esa dksbZ /kujkf'k ns; u gksxhA 

¼4½ bu f'k{kdksa ds va'knk;h Hkfo"; fuokZg fuf/k ds [kkrs esa og lc /kujkf'k tks ftyk ifj"kn~] LFkkuh; fudkvkas ,oa csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn~ ds va'knku ds :i esa 28 Qjojh]1977 rd tek gks x;h gS ;k tek gksus ;ksX; gSa] ladfyr C;kt lfgr f'k{kk ds izkfIr 'kh"kZd ^^077&f'k{kk&p&lkekU;¼bZ½ vU; izkfIr;ka&13 izdh.kZ^^ esa tek dh tk;sxh ,oa f'k{kdksa ds va'knku dks leLr /kujkf'k C;kt lfgr jktdh; dks"k esa iwoZor~ ys[kk'kh"kZd 838&LFkkuh; fuf/k;ksa ds fu{ksi&vU;&Lok;Rr fudk;ksa ds fu{ksi¼d½ vk/kkfjd fo|ky;ksa ¼csfld Ldwyksa½ ds f'k{k.k ,oa f'k{k.ksRrj deZpkfj;ksa ds Hkfo"; fuf/k;ka ds ysu&nsu^^ ds v/khu tek jgsaxh vkSj Hkfo"; esa iwoZor tek gksrh jgsaxhA 

¼5½ mijksDr isa'ku lekurk ds ykHk ikus ds ik= dsoy os gh f'k{kd gksaxs tks vius izkfo/kk;h fuf/k ds ys[ks esa tek ftyk ifj"kn~ LFkkuh; fudk;ksa vFkok csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn~ ds va'knku dks ml ij ladfyr C;kt lfgr jktdks"k esa tek dj nsus dh Lohd`fr nsaxsA 

2- eq>s vkils ;g Hkh dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd mDr ;kstuk ds varxZr isa'ku izkIr djus ds fy, izR;sd deZpkjh dks bl ckr dk fyf[kr fodYi nsuk gksaxk fd og bl ;kstuk ds v/khu isa'ku izkIr djuk pkgsxk vFkok 'kklukns'k la0,&5355@15&3133@1962] fnukad 17 fnlEcj] 1965 }kjk izlkfjr ykHk=;h ;kstuk ds vUrxZr isa'ku vkSj mRrj izns'k csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn~ Hkfo"; fuf/k fu;ekoyh] 1975 ds vUrxZr csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn~ dk va'knku izkIr djsxkA tks v/;kid uxj egkikfydk dh lsok ls gLrkUrfjr gksdj mRrj izns'k csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn~ dh lsok esa vk;s gSa vkSj ftUgksaus ykHk=;h ;kstuk ds fy;s fodYi ugha fn;k gS] mUgsa Hkh bl ckr dk fodYi nsuk gksxk fd og bl ;kstuk ds v/khu isa'ku ysuk pkgsxs vFkok lEcfU/kr uxj egkikfydk ds fofu;eksa ds vuqlkj isa'ku ds ykHkksa dk mi;ksx djuk pkgsaxsA mDr fofu;eksa ds vUrxZr ns; isa'ku ds lkFk mRrj izns'k csfld f'k{kk Hkfo"; fuf/k fu;ekoyh] 1975 ds vUrxZr ns; ifj"knh; va'knku vuqeU; ugha gksxk vkSj muds [kkrs esa tks dqN Hkh ifj"knh; va'knku tek gS] og lapkfyr C;kt lfgr] mijksDr izLrj&1¼4½ esa bafxr ys[kk 'kh"kZd esa tek djk fy;k tk;sxkA ekpZ]1]1977 ds i'pkr~ tks Hkh v/;kid csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn~ }kjk fu;qDr fd;s x;s gSa ;k fd;s tk;saxs mu ij ;g ;kstuk vfuok;Z :i ls ykxw gksxh vkSj muls dksbZ fodYi Hkjkuk vko';d ugha gksxkA 

3- eq>s ;g Hkh dguk gS fd bl jktkKk ds vUrxZr isa'ku Hkksfx;ksa dks os leLr vLFkk;h o`f);ka Hkh vuqeU; gksxh gks 1 ekpZ] 1977 rd lsok fuo`Rr gksus okys deZpkfj;ksa dks ias'ku esa le;≤ ij 'kklu }kjk Lohd`r dh xbZ gSaA lEizfr jktdh; isa'ku Hkksfx;ksa dks bl izdkj tks o`f);ka vuqeU; gS muds 'kklukns'kksa dk fooj.k layXud&2 esa vafdr gSA 

4- eq>s ;g Hkh dguk gS fd f'k{kd bl 'kklukns'k ds vUrxZr isa'ku izkIr djus dk fodYi nsrs gS muds lkekU; HkfOk"; fuokZg fuf/k dk ys[kk&tks[kk ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh ds dk;kZy; esa gh j[kk tk;sxk vkSj bl lEcU/k esa lkekU; Hkfo"; fuokZg fuf/k esa egaxkbZ dVkSrh jktdks"k esa fu{ksi ys[kk 'kh"kZd ^^ 838 LFkkuh; fuf/k;ksa ds fu{ksi vU; LorU= fudk;ksa ds fu{ksi ¼d½ vk/kkfjd fo|ky;ksa ¼csfld Ldyksa½ ds f'k{k.k ,oa f'k{k.ksRrj deZpkfj;ksa dh Hkfo"; fuf/k;ksa ds ysu nsu ^^ ds v/khu tek dh tk;sxhA 

5- eq>s ;g Hkh dguk gS fd jktkKk la[;k ,&5355@15&3133@1962 fnukad 17 fnlEcj]1965 }kjk izlkfjr ykHk=;h ;kstuk rFkk orZeku mRrj izns'k csfld f'k{kk Hkfo"; fuf/k fu;ekoyh] 1975 mDr lhek rd la'kksf/kr le>h tk;A 

6- bl jktkKk ls layXu fodYi&i= ij izR;sd lgk;d@iz/kku ls fodYi izkIr dj fy;k tk;s vkSj rn~uqlkj mudks lsok iqfLrdkvksa ls bl fodYi&i= dks lqjf{kr j[kk tk;sA ;g fodYi&i= fnukad 30 twu]1978 rd izR;sd v/;kid ls izkIr dh fy;k tk;s vkSj 15 tqykbZ 1978 rd bl lEcU/k esa gqbZ izxfr ls 'kklu dks voxr djk;k tk;sA ,d ckj fd;k x;k fodYi vafre vkSj vifjoRrZuh; gksxkA 

7- blh ds lkFk mDr ;kstuk ds vUrjxr O;; fd;s tkus gsrq jkT;iky egksn; o"kZ 1977&78 ds 17]00]000¼lrjg yk[k :i;s½ dks /kujkf'k Hkh vkids fuorZu ij j[ks tkus gsrq la?k"kZ Lohd`fr iznku djrs gSaA vLFkkbZ :i ls FkhA ;g vFkok bldk dksbZ Hkkx vU; dk;Z ds fy;s iz;ksx esa ugha yk;k tk;sxkA 

8- bl fufeRr gksus okyk O;; foRRkh; O;; ¼1977&78½ ds vk; O;kid ds ys[kk 'kh"kZd&f'k{kk vk;kstsRRkj ¼d½ izkFkfed ¼iv½ v'kkldh; izkFkfed fo|ky;ksa dks lgk;rk&¼v½ mRrj izns'k csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn~ ds izkbejh ,oa twfu;j gkbZ Ldwyksa ds v/;kidksa dks isa'ku ls fodfyr gksxkA 

9- ;g vkns'k foRr ¼O;;&fu;a=.k½ vuqHkkx x ds v'kkldh; la[;k bZ&1@9@21 fnukad 4 ekpZ 1978 ds varxZr mudh lgefr ls tkjh fd;s tk jgs gSaA 
Hkonh; 
g0 vt; 'kadj mi lfpoA 

6. So far as the government employees are concerned, they were covered by U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 and the General Provident Fund (U.P.) Rules, 1985. It was under the said rules that they were entitled to the pensionary benefits. In the year 2005, the State Government modified both the above rules. On 07.04.2005 U.P. Retirement Benefits (Amendment) Rules, 2005 were notified amending the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules 1965. This notification reads as follows:- 
"THE UTTAR PRADESH RETIREMENT BENEFITS (AMENDMENT) RULES, 2005 
1. (1) These rules shall be called the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits (Amendment) Rules, 2005. 
(2) The shall and be deemed to have come into force with effect from April, 1, 2005. 
2. In the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 in rule 2, after existing sub-rule (2) the following new sub-rule shall be inserted namely- 
"(3) These rules shall not apply to employees entering services and posts on or after April 1, 2005 in connection with the affairs of the state borne on pensionable establishment, whether temporary or permanent." 
7. Similarly another notification, also dated 07.04.2005, known as the General Provident Fund (U.P.) (Amendment) Rules 2005 was published amending the General Provident Fund (U.P.) Rules, 1985. The said notifications reads as follows:- 
"1. Short title and commencement .-(1) These rules may be called the General Provident Fund (Uttar Pradesh)(Amendment) Rules, 2005. 
(2) They shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from April 1, 2005. 
2. In the General Provident Fund (Uttar Pradesh) Rules, 1985 for existing Rule 4 set out in Column-1 below, the rules as set out in Column-2 shall be substituted, namely:- 
Column-1 
Existing rule 
4. Conditions of eligibility.-All permanent Government servants and all temporary Government servants, other than those appointed on contract and re-employed pensioners, whose service are likely to continue for more than a year shall subscribe to the fund from the date of joining the service: 
Note1.- Apprentices and probationers shall be treated as temporary government servants for the purpose of this rule. 
Note2.-Temporary government servants (including apprentices and probationers) who have been appointed against regular or temporary vacancies and are likely to continue for more than a year shall subscribe to the Fund from the date of joining the service. 
Note 3.- Executive authorities should inform the Account Officer as soon as a government servant becomes liable to subscribe to the Fund. 



Column-2 
Rules as hereby substituted 
4. Conditions of eligibility.-All permanent government servants and all temporary government servants, other than those appointed on contract and re-employed pensioners, whose service are likely to continue for more than a year shall subscribe to the fund from the date of joining the service: 
Provided that no government servant entering service on or after April 1, 2005 shall subscribe to the fund. 
Note 1.-Apprentices and probationers shall be treated as temporary government servants for the purpose of this rule. 
Note 2.- Temporary government servants (including apprentices and probationers) who have been appointed against regular or temporary vacancies and are likely to continue for more than a year shall subscribe to the Fund from the date of joining the service. 
Note 3.-Executive authorities should inform the Account Officer as soon as a government servant becomes liable to subscribe to the Fund. 
8. Thus, a new defined contribution pension scheme was notified and made applicable on the employees joining services after 01.04.2005 and the old defined benefit pension scheme and the general provident fund benefits schemes, as were available to the government employees, were denied for those who would be joining services after the cut-off date, i.e. 01.04.2005. 
9. It is in view of the aforesaid amendments that the present dispute has come up with regard to the petitioners, i.e. as to whether they are appointed prior to 01.04.2005 and would be covered by the old scheme or they are appointed after 01.04.2005 and its the new policy that will apply upon them. This Court in this bunch of writ petition, while entertaining the writ petitions, directed "opposite parties to allow deduction of G.P.F. amount from the salary of the petitioners under old pension scheme." Thus, at present, under the interim orders of this court, petitioners are getting deduction and deposits made under the old pension scheme. 
10. So far as appointment of the teachers and employees of the Board is concerned, the power under the Basic Education Act is vested in the Board and is regulated by their services rules notified under the said act from time to time. Section 13(1) of the Basic Education Act provides: 
"13. Control by the State Government:- (1)The Board shall carry out such directions as may be issued to it from time to time by the State Government for the efficient administration of this Act." 
11. The State Government, to give benefit of the dying in harness policy, exercising power under section 13(1) of the Basic Education Act issued the GO of 2000 (see clause 4 of the GO of 2000). The said GO is of relevance for the present controversy and is thus quoted below: 

"e`rd vkfJrksa dks f'k{kd in ij fu;qfDr Li"Vhdj.k 
la[;k&5193@15&5&2004&400¼222½@99 
lsok esa] 
Jh ,u0 jfo'kadj
lfpo] mRrj izns'k f'k{kk funs'kd¼cs0½ ,oa v/;{k] 
mRrj izns'k 'kkluA csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn] bykgkckn 
f'k{kk vuqHkkx&5 
fo"k;%& mRrj izns'k csfld f'k{kkifj"kn ds vUrxZr lsokjr f'k{kdksa@f'k{k.ksRrj deZpkfj;ksa dh lsokdky esa e`R;q gks tksus dh fLFkfr esa] muds vkfJrksa ds lsok;kstu ds lEcU/k esaA 
egksn;] 
mi;qZDr fo"k; ij eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd 'kklukns'k la[;k&1-95@15&595&30@82] fnukad 2 Qjojh] 1996 ds vUrxZr mRrj csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn ds v/khu lsokjr f'k{kdksa@f'k{k.ksRrj deZpkfj;ksa dh lsokdky esa e`R;q gks tkus ij muds ,d vkfJr dks ifj"kn ds v/khu lsok;kstu ds lEcU/k esa O;oLFkk dh x;h Fkh ek0 mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn esa ;ksftr fjV ;kfpdk la[;k&41564@1997 latho dqekj nwcs cuke ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd] bVkok o vU; eas ek0 U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 27-4-1998 ds vuq'khyu essa tkjh 'kklu ds vkns'k la[;k&1634@10&11&98&1499¼8½@77] fnuakd 8 tuojh] 1999 }kjk e`rd vkfJr lsok;kstu ds lEcU/k esa fuxZr lHkh 'kklukns'k vfrdzfer gks tkus ds QyLo:i csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn ds v/khu lsokvksa esa e`rd vkfJr lsok;kstu dh O;oLFkk mDr frfFk ls ckf/kr jgh gSA 
2- bl chp ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds mi;qZDr fu.kZ; fnukad 27-4-1998 ds fo:} latho dqekj nqcs] }kjk nk;j vihy la[;k 26@98] esa] ek0 mPp U;k;ky; dh nks lnL;h; U;k;kihB us vius vkns'k fnukad 1 Qjojh] 2000 }kjk ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds iwoZorhZ fu.kZ; fnukad 27-4-1998 dks fujLr dj fn;k gSA ek0 mPp U;k;ky; dh nks lnL;h; ihB }kjk iz'uxr ekeyk lEcfU/kr ihB dks ek- U;k;ky; dh lafo{kkvksa ds vkyksd esa iquZfopkj gsrq lanfHkZr fd;k x;k gSA 
3- mDr ds vuqdze esa 'kklu }kjk ek0 U;k;ky; dh lafo{kkvksa dh Hkkouk o izkFkfed f'k{kk dh xq.koRrk dks cuk;s j[kus dh vko';drk dks vuqHko djrs gq, lE;d fopkjksijkUr mRrj izns'k csfld f'k{kk] ifj"knh; f'k{kdksa@f'k{k.ksRrj deZpkfj;ksa dh lsokdky esa e`R;q gks tkus ij muds ifjokj ds ,d vkfJr dks fuEufyf[kr 'krksZ ,oa izfrcU/kksa ds v/khu lsok;kstu dk volj iznku fd;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS%& 
¼1½ m0iz0 lsokdky esa e`r ljdkjh lsodksa ds vkfJrksa dh HkrhZ ¼ikapok la'kks/ku½ fu;ekoyh] 1999 ds izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj gh csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn dh lsok ds f'k{k.k@f'k{k.ksRrj deZpkfj;ksa dh lsokdky esa e`R;q gks tkus ij e`rd deZpkjh dk ifr ;k iRuh ¼tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks½ dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k fdlh jkT; ljdkj ;k dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k fdlh jkT; ljdkj ds LokfeRok/khu ;k muds }kjk fu;af=r fdlh fuxe ds v/khu igys ls lsok;ksftr u gks rks mlds dqVqEc ds ,sls ,d lnL; dks tks dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k jkT; ljdkj ;k dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k jkT; ljdkj ds LokfeRok/khu ;k muds }kjk fu;af=r fdlh fuxe ds v/khu igys ls lsok;ksftr u gksA bl lEcU/k esa e`rd vkfJr vkosnudrkZ ls 'kiFk i= izkIr djus ds mijkUr gh mlds lsok;kstu ij fopkj fd;k tk;sxkA 
¼2½ mRrj izns'k csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn ds f'k{kdksa@f'k{k.ksRrj deZpkfj;ksa ds ,sls e`rd vkfJr tks csjkstxkj gks vkSj fu;eksa ds vUrxZr fu/kkZfjr 'kSf{kd ,oa izf'k{k.k ;ksX;rk j[krs gks rFkk vU; izdkj ls ifj"kn ds lsok gsrq vgZa gks] dks ifj"knh; izkFkfed fo|ky;ksa ds lgk;d v/;kid@v/;kfidk ds in ij vFkok ifj"kn ds v/khu f'k{k.ksRrj r`rh; Js.kh ds lcls uhps ds in ij vFkok prqFkZ Js.kh ds in ij fofgr ;ksX;rk@izf'k{k.k ;ksX;rk vk/kkj ij lsok;kstu gsrq vkosnu djus ij HkrhZ ds lkekU; fu;eksa@izfdz;k dks f'kfFky djrs gq, ifj"knh; lsok esa mi;ZqDr lsok;kstu ij fopkj fd;k tk;sxkA 
¼3½ le;≤ ij ;Fkk la'kksf/kr mRrj izns'k csfld f'k{kk ¼v/;kid½ lsok fu;ekoyh 1981 ds vuqlkj vgZ e`rd vkfJr dks lgk;d v/;kid@v/;kfidk ds in ij vkosnu djus ds fnukad ls ;Fkk lEHko rhu ekg ds vUnj lsok;sktu dh lqfo/kk tuin Lrj ij fjDr in vFkok in fjDr u gksus dh fLFkfr esa vf/kla[; in ds fo:} iznku dh tk;sxhA 
¼4½ ,sls e`rd vkfJr tks] lsok;kstu gsrq vkosnu i= izLrqr djus dh frfFk dks lgk;d v/;kid ds in gsrq lsokfu;eksa esa fofgr 'kSf{kd vgZrk j[krs gksa] ijUrq izf'k{k.k vgZrk ugh j[krs@iwjh ugha djrs dks] vizf'kf{kr v/;kid ds :i esa lsok;kstu gsrq vkonsu djus ij ;lFkklEHko rhu ekg ds vUnj lsok;kstu dh lqfo/kk iznku dh tk;sxhA ,sls e`rd vkfJr dks lsok;kstu ds ckn lEcfU/kr tuin ds ftyk f'k{kk ,oa izf'k{k.k laLFkku esa izkjEHk gksus okys csfld v/;kid izek.k i= ¼ch0Vh0lh0½ izf'k{k.k ikB~;dze ds vkxkeh igys cSap esa izf'k{k.k gsrq izos'k fn;k tk;sxkA e`rd vkfJr ds #i esa izkFkfed fo|ky; esa lgk;d v/;kid@v/;kfidk ds in ij fu;fer fu;qfDr iznku djus ds fy, mudks ch0Vh0lh0 izf'k{k.k ikB~;dze lQYkrkiwoZd iw.kZ djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA izf'k{k.k vof/k esa mUgssa vizf'kf{kr v/;kid ds :i esa fu;r osru tSlk fd 'kklu }kjk le;≤ ij fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gks] ns; gksxkA csfld v/;kid izf'k{k.k ikB~;dze esa mRrh.kZ gksus ds ckn gh izkFkfed fo|ky; esa lgk;d v/;kid ds in ij fu;fer fu;qfDr iznku dh tk;sxhA 
fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh ,oa ftyk f'k{kk ,oa izf'k{k.k laLFkku dk ;g nkf;Ro gksxk fd og vizf'kf{kr v/;kid ds :i esa lsok;ksftr e`rd vkfJr vH;fFkZ;ksa ds lsokjr izf'k{k.k dh O;oLFkk muds lsok;kstu ds ckn izkjEHk gksus okys igys izf'k{k.k l= esa lqfuf'pr djsaxsaA 
,sls e`rd vkfJr dks tks mi;qZDr lsokjr izf'k{k.k dks fu/kkZfjr vof/k eas lQYkrkiwoZd iwoZ djus eas vlQy jgrs gS] ds fy, ;g fodYi miyC/k jgsxk fd og prqFkZ Js.kh ds in ds lkis{k fu;qfDr gsrq vkosnu djsa vFkok izf'k{k.k mRrh.kZ djus rd vizf'kf{kr v/;kid ds :i esa fu;r osru ij cus jgsA fdUrq izfrcU/k gS fd ,sls lsokjr ch0Vh0lh0 izf'k{k.kkfFkZ;ksa dks lkekU; ch0Vh0lh0 ikB~;dze ds izf'k{k.kkFkhZ dh Hkkafr gh ch0Vh0lh0 ikB~;dze dh vuqiwjd ijh{kk gsrq fofgr fu;eksa ds vuqlkj volj vuqeU; gksxsaA fdUrq ;fn vH;FkhZ rc Hkh ch0Vh0lh0 dh vafre ijh{kk mRrh.kZ djus esa foQYk jgrs gS rks ,sls vH;FkhZ ds fy, prqFkZ Js.kh ds in ds lkis{; fu;fer fu;qfDRk ds vfrfjDr vU; dksbZ fodYi 'ks"k ugha jgsxkA vr% ,sls vH;FkhZ tks ch-Vh-lh- ijh{kk esa vfUre :i ls foQy jgrs gS] dks lgk;d v/;kid ds in ds fy, vH;FkZu Lor% fujLr le>k tk;sxk vkSj ch-Vh-lh- ijh{kk eas] vafre :i ls vlQy gksus ds ekg ds vafre dk;Z fnol ls vizf'kf{kr v/;kid ds :Ik esa Hkh mudh fu;qfDr Lor% lekIr le>h tk;sxhA fdUrq ,sls vH;FkhZ ;fn prqFkZ Js.kh ds fjDRk@vf/kla[; in ds lkis{; lsok;kstu dh izkFkZuk djrs gSa] rks ml ij fopkj fd;k tk ldsxkA 
¼5½ ,sls e`rd vkfJr tks] lEcfU/kr deZpkjh dh e`R;q ds fnukad dks e`rd vkfJr ds :i esa lsok;kstu ds fy;s U;wure 'kSf{kd vgZrk b.VjehfM,V vFkok mlls vf/kd j[krs gksa vkSj csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn ds v/khu v/khuLFk LRkjksa ij fyfid ds lEoxZ ds lcls uhps ds in ij lsok;kstu ds fy;s vU;Fkk vgZ gks] dks lEcfU/kr tuin ds fyfid ds fjDr in ds lkis{; laoxZ esa lcls uhps ds in ij lsok;kstu iznku fd;k tk;sxkA 
tuin esa fjDr fyfid ds in ij e`rd vkfJr ds :i eas lsok;kstu ds fy, izkIr leLr vkosnu i=ksa dks izFke vkxr izFke iznRr ds vk/kkj ij iathd`r fd;k tk;sxk rFkk foHkkx ds fjDr gksus okys inksa ds lkis{; izFke vkxr izFke iznRr ds fu;e dk ikyu lqfuf'pr djrs gq, lsok;kstu iznku fd;k tk;sxkA fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh rnuqlkj e`rd vkfJr vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph dks izR;sd ekg ds izkjEHk esa vius dk;kZy; ds lwpuk iVy ij iznf'kZr djsxs vkSj izR;sd ekg gksusokyh fjfDr ds lkis{; lsok;ksftr e`rd vkfJr dk uke iznf'kZr djrs gq, mDr lwph dk rnuqlkj la'kksf/kr dj vxys ekg ds izkjEHk esa v|kof/kd la'kksf/kr lwph dk;kZy; esa lwpuk iVy ij iznf'kZr djrs jgsaxsA r`rh; Js.kh ds fjDr in ds lkis{k e`rd vkfJr lsok;kstu ds fy, izR;sd vH;FkhZ ds uke fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh ds dk;kZy; esa iathd`r gksus dh frfFk ls ikap o"kZ dh vof/k iwjh gksus ds ekg ds vafre dk;Z fnol rd ;fn izFke vkxr izFke iznRr ds fl}kUr ds vuqlkj lsok;kstu gsrq Js.kh rhu dh fjfDr miyC/k ughaq gksrh rks lEcfU/kr vH;FkhZ dk uke iathd`r vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph ls fudky fn;k tk;sxk fdUrq bl vof/k ls iwoZ ;fn Js.kh pkj ds fjDRk in@vf/kla[; in ds lkis{; lsok;kstu gsrq viuk la'kksf/kr vkosnu i= fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh ds dk;kZy; eas iathd`r djk ysa rks ml ij fopkj fd;k tk;sxkA 
e`rd vkfJr ifjokj dh dfBu ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, ;fn dksbZ vH;FkhZ] fyfid laoxZ ds in dh fjfDr ds lkis{; lsok;kstu esa] lEHkkfor foyEc dks] n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, ;fn rRdky lsok;kstu dh vko';drk vuqHko djrk gks rks fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh ds fy, ,sls vH;fFkZ;ksa ds lEcU/k eas prqFkZ Js.kh esa fjDr ;k vf/kla[; inksa ds lkis{; e`rd vkfJr ds iqujhf{kr vkosnu i= izLrqr djus ij lsok;kstu djus dk vf/kdkj gksxkA ;gkW ;g LIk"V fd;k tkrk gS fd ,d ckj e`rd vkfJr ds :i eas iznRr lsok;kstu dh lqfo/kk ij iquZfopkj dk dksbZ volj ugha jgsxkA 
¼6½ ,sls e`rd vkfJr ftudh U;wure 'kSf{kd ;ksX;rk twfu;j gkbZLdwy gS] dks csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn ds tuin Lrjh; dk;kZy; esa fjDr in vFkok ifj"knh; fo|ky;ksa esa prqFkZ Js.kh ds fjDr ;k vf/kla[; in ij lsok;kstu dh lqfo/kk iznku dh tk;sxhA tuin Lrjh; dk;kzy; ds lEcU/k esa vf/kla[; in ds fo:} e`rd vkfJr lsok;kstu vuqeU; ugha gksxkA 
¼7½ vf/kla[; in Hkfo"; esa fjDr gksusokys inksa ds lkis{; le;≤ ij lek;ksftr fd;s tk;sxsA fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh tuin dks bdkbZ ekurs gq, fjDr@vf/kla[; inksa ds fo:} e`rd vkfJrksa dks lsok;ksftr djsxsA tuin ds dk;kZy;ksa esa fdlh Hkh vf/kla[; in ds fo:} fu;qfDr;kWa ugha dh tk;sxhA vf/kla[; in ds in/kkjh }kjk dh x;h lsok dh x.k osru fu/kkZj.k vkSj lsokuSo`frd ykHkksa ds fy, dh tk;sxhA 
¼8½ e`rd vkfJr }kjk lEcfU/kr deZpkjh ds e`R;q ds fnukad ls ikpa o"kZ ds Hkhrj lsok;ktu ds fy, vkosnu izLrqr fd;k tk ldrk gSA ijUrq tgkWa jkT; ljdkj dks ;g lek/kku gks tk;s fd lsok;kstu ds fy, vkosnu djus ds fy, fu;r le; lhek ls fdlh fof'k"V ekeys esa] vuqfpr dfBukbZ gksrh gS ogkW og vis{kkvksa dks] ftugsa og ekeysa esa U;k;laxr vkSj lkE;iw.kZ jhfr ls dk;zokgh djus ds fy, vko';d le>s] vfHkeqDr ;k f'kfFky dj ldrh gSA fu;eksa ls bl vk'k; dh vfHkeqfDr@f'kfFkyhdj.k ds lEcU/k esa izLrko lEcfU/kr fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh 
}kjk f'k{kk funs'kd ¼cs0½ ds ek/;e ls 'kklu dks izsf"kr fd;s tk;saxsA 
¼9½ mRrj izns'k lsokdky esa e`r ljdkjh lsodksa ds vkfJrksa dh HkrhZ ls lEcfU/kr le; le; ij la'kksf/kr fu;ekoyh dh O;oLFkkvksa ds v/khu mRrj izns'k csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn ds deZpkfj;ksa ds e`rd vkfJr dk rkRi;Z e`rd f'k{k.k@f'k{k.ksRrj deZpkjh ds iq= vfookfgr vFkok fo/kok iq=h iRuh vFkok ifr ls gksxkA 
¼10½ e`rd vkfJr ds :i esa lsok;kstu ds fy, U;wure vk;q lhek tSlk fd lEcfU/kr lsok laoxZ ds lsok fu;eksa esa fufgr gS] gksxhA 
4- Jh jkT;iky mRrj izns'k csfld f'k{kk vf/kfu;e 1972 ¼mRrj izns'k vf/kfu;e la[;k&34 lu~ 1972½ dh /kkjk 13 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds vUrxZr ;g vkns'k nsrs gS fd mi;qZDr fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh lqfuf'pr dh tk;sA 
5- ;g vkns'k fnukad 8-1-1999 ls izHkkoh ekuk tk;sxkA 
6- ;g vkns'k foRr foHkkx ds v'kkldh; la[;k&vkbZ0,Q0,0&2&1490@nl@2000 fnukad 29-8-2000 esa izkIr mudh lgefr ls fuxZr fd;s tk jgs gSA 
Hkonh; 
,u0 jfo'kadj 
lfpoA" 
12. I have heard learned counsels for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State and learned counsels for the District Basic Education Officers and the Board at length. The submission of learned counsels for the petitioners on one hand is that the petitioners were appointed under the Dying in Harness Rules and their appointment was, thus, substantiative in nature from day one, therefore, they are to be treated as appointed on the date they were sent on training. On the other hand, the stand of the learned standing counsel for the State of U.P. and learned counsels for B.S.A and Board is that petitioners were only sent on training initially and its only after 01.04.2005, when they completed their training, they were appointed as regular employee on regular pay scale and, therefore, it the 2005 Rules which would be applicable on the petitioners. It is also argued by the respondents counsels that even otherwise, it is the U.P. Basic Education Provident Fund Rules, 1975 which will apply on the petitioners. 
13. The entire dispute runs around the interpretation of GO of 2000. Since the GO of 2000 is issued by the state government, exercising its power under section 13 of the Basic Education Act, the Board is bound by it. It is the said GO of 2000 by which petitioners were appointed. Clause 3(1) of the said GO provides that appointments under the Dying in Harness Rules shall be made as per the provisions of U.P. Dying in Harness Rules (5th Amendment) Rules, 1999 (The originally are U.P. Dying in Harness Rules 1974). The GO of 2000 itself provides the modification in the appointment process, as for appointment of assistant teachers in basic schools, along with education qualifications, B.T.C. training is also must. Thus, these appointments are made as per the Dying in Harness Rules 1974, as they stood amended/modified in the year 1999, subject to further amendment/modification provided by the GO of 2000. Clause-3(3) of the said GO of 2000 provides that the qualified applicants shall be entitled as per the post vacant at the district level and in case the posts are not available, supernumerary posts are to be created, as far as possible, within a period of three months from the date application is made for appointment under the said GO of 2000. Clause-3(4) provides that such dependents of the deceased employee, who on the date of application are having educational qualification on the post of assistant teachers but are not having training qualification, shall be given the benefit of appointment as untrained teachers, so far as possible, within a period of three months of their application. Such dependents of the deceased, after their appointment as untrained teacher, shall be given admission in the next batch, in the training institute of the concerned district, for B.T.C training. For getting a appointment in a primary school as Assistant Teacher, as a beneficiary of Dying in Harness Rules, they have to complete the B.T.C. training. During the said B.T.C. course, they would be paid fixed salary, as fixed by the Government from time to time. After passing their training course, they shall be given regular appointment as assistant teachers in a primary school on regular pay scale. The appointing authority and the district training institute were made responsible to ensure that the untrained teachers, on their being appointed under ''Dying in Harness Rules', are given training in the very next batch starting after their appointment. Any person failing to clear the said training examination would be given appointment as a Class-IV employee and his appointment as untrained teachers shall be automatically treated to have ended. The said Government Order was made effective from 08.01.1999. 
14. Thus, a bare perusal of the said Government Order shows that the petitioners were given an appointment as untrained teachers. They were to be given a further appointment as assistant teachers in basic school after completing their training. Thus, their first appointment was as untrained teachers under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 as amended with regard to them. The law with regard to the nature of appointments under the said Dying in Harness Rules is well settled by this court by number of its judgments, to be of permanent nature. Reference is made in case of Yogendra Ram Chaurasiya Vs. State of U.P. and Others; 2002 (5) AWC 3708. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted below:- 
"4. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the appointment of the Appellant was made on compassionate grounds under the provisions of Dying in Harness Rules, which appointment cannot be treated as temporary appointment and rather it was permanent appointment and, therefore, the services could not have been terminated under the provisions U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. He relied upon the decision in the case of Ravi Karan Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1991 (1) ALR 754....... 
7. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ravi Karan Singh has held that: 
"an appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules has to be treated as a permanent appointment otherwise if such appointment is treated to be a temporary appointment, then it will follow that soon after the appointment, the service can be terminated and this will nullify the very purpose of the Dying-in-Harness Rules because such appointment is intended to provide immediate relief to the family on the sudden death of the bread earner. We, therefore, hold that the appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules is a permanent appointment and not a temporary appointment, and hence the provisions of U.P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975, will not apply to such appointments." 
9. In view of the decision of this Court in the case of Ravi Karan Singh with which we respectfully agree, any appointment made under the provisions of Dying-in-Harness Rules is to be treated as a permanent appointment and not a temporary appointment. This is also clear from the Government order dated 23.1.1976 filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition wherein it has been mentioned that the dependent of deceased employee appointed on compassionate ground under the provisions of Dying-in-Harness Rules should not be retrenched even where the strength of the employee is being reduced. Thus, we hold that the appointment of the Appellant-writ Petitioner is to be treated as permanent appointment and not a temporary appointment........." 
15. Submission of respondents, that, the petitioners were never appointed prior to the year 2005 and were appointed only after completing their training, after the year 2005, is nothing but a misreading of GO of 2000. The petitioners, as per the aforesaid GO of 2000, were appointed on permanent basis as untrained teachers and were given appointment as trained assistant teachers in basic school after completion of their training. Thus, merely because they were appointed on fixed salary would not make them any less a government employee than the other government employee. The continuity of the employment is reflected in the Government Order itself. Even on failing in the training course, the fact that they would be given appointment as a Class-IV employee, shows the intent of the government to give them a permanent job, one way or other. The respondents could not show anything from any rules, including pension/provident fund rules, which would require petitioners, for any reason, to be treated differently than other permanent employees. The old provisions of the pension and provident fund scheme were applicable to all other employees appointed prior to 01.04.2005. Here petitioners are also appointed on permanent basis, prior to 01.04.2005, as untrained teachers, who cleared their training and thereafter, given appointment as assistant teachers in basic schools. Thus, so far as the petitioners are concerned, there is no dispute that their appointment as trained assistant teachers in basic school are in continuation of their earlier appointment as untrained teachers. 
16. Thus, there is no reason to treat them as being appointed for the first time, on completion of their training, after the year 2005. Since the petitioners were appointed prior to the year 2005, they are not impacted by the notifications dated 07.04.2005. They are persons who were appointed permanently before 01.04.2005 and are entitled to be treated at par with all other similarly appointed permanent assistant teachers in basic school, for the purpose of their pension and provident fund benefits. Since, the Government Order dated 15.11.2011 is contrary to the aforementioned rules/directions of the State Government issued under Section 13 of the Basic Eduction Act, hence, the same is not sustainable. 
17. Hence, all these writ petitions are allowed and Government Order dated 15.11.2011 is quashed. Petitioners shall be given all the provident fund, pension and other benefits, as are available to other permanent employees of the Board, appointed prior to 01.04.2005. 
Order Date :-28.02.2018 
Arti/- (Vivek Chaudhary, J.) 



 UPTET  / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates /   Teacher Recruitment  / शिक्षक भर्ती /  SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS  
UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
 Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825  Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825  Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825  Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825  Teacher Recruitment  Uptet News Hindi | 72825  Teacher Recruitment  Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,

CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET  ,
Rajasthan TET /  RTET,  BETET / Bihar TET,   PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET
 

महिला याची ने ट्रांसफर के लिए ऑनलाइन आवेदन 13 फरवरी को कर दिया और पूछा ट्रांसफर ऑर्डर क्यों नहीं हुआ, कोर्ट ने अगली डेट 7 मार्च लगाई

महिला याची ने ट्रांसफर के लिए ऑनलाइन आवेदन 13 फरवरी को कर दिया और पूछा ट्रांसफर ऑर्डर क्यों नहीं हुआ, कोर्ट ने अगली डेट 7 मार्च लगाई 



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH 

?Court No. - 23 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 5626 of 2018 
Petitioner :- Rachna Shukla 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Edu.Deptt.Civil Sectt.Lko.&Ors. 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Naveen Kumar Sinha,Net Ram 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vindhya Washini Kumar 

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 
Heard Sri Naveen Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 & 3 and Sri Vindhya Washini Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 & 4. 
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for seeking transfer from District-Gonda to District-Lucknow the petitioner has submitted on-line application bearing Application No.34188 dated 13.02.2018, but no suitable order has yet been passed by the competent authority. 
List this case on 07.03.2018 as fresh to enable the learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 & 4 to seek instructions in the matter. 
Order Date :- 23.2.2018 
Suresh/ 
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] 



 UPTET  / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates /   Teacher Recruitment  / शिक्षक भर्ती /  SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS  
UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
 Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825  Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825  Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825  Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825  Teacher Recruitment  Uptet News Hindi | 72825  Teacher Recruitment  Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,

CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET  ,
Rajasthan TET /  RTET,  BETET / Bihar TET,   PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET
 

Breaking कोर्ट ने कहा कि - ट्रांसफर प्रक्रिया में किसी भी गड़बड़ी के लिए सीधे सचिव जिम्मेदार होंगे , महिलाओं की याचिका का दोबारा अंबार लगा जिसमें हेरा फेरी / पिकचूस की आशंका जताई गई

Breaking कोर्ट ने कहा कि - ट्रांसफर प्रक्रिया में  किसी भी गड़बड़ी के लिए सीधे सचिव जिम्मेदार होंगे , महिलाओं की याचिका का दोबारा अंबार लगा जिसमें हेरा फेरी / पिकचूस की आशंका जताई गई

बहुत सारी याचिकाएं दाखिल की गई थीं, जिसमे से 2 का उल्लेख नीचे दिए गए आदेश मे हैं, कोर्ट ने कानूनानुसार ट्रांसफर करने को कहा

 Court is of the considered opinion that for ensuring fair play and transparency, the Secretary (Basic Education), Government of UP, Lucknow as well as Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Allahabad shall monitor the entire transfer process in this regard. In case there is any lapses, irregularities or partiality in this regard, they would be solely responsible. 

हमारे ब्लॉग ने आदेशों का अवलोकन करने पर पाया है कि पति पत्नी सरकारी सेवा में होने वाले केसेस में पत्नियों को मिलेगी मुख्य वरीयता, और कोर्ट का बिभा वाले एवं अन्य मामलों में इसको प्रमुखता से लिखा गया है




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

?Court No. - 30 

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6335 of 2018 

Petitioner :- Poonam Rani 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh Bais 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav 

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. 
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents and have perused the record. 
At the very outset, learned counsel for the parties agree that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is fully covered by a decision of this Court dated 6.2.2018 passed in Writ-A No. 2868 of 2018 (Bibha Singh Kushwaha and 21 others vs. State of U.P.). 
The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgement dated 6.2.2018 is quoted hereinunder:- 
"9. Once the assurance has been given, then this Court hopes and trusts that in the light of the order dated 5.2.2018 and the consequential order dated 6.2.2018 the respondent authority would proceed in the matter and very soon the publication would be made in the widely circulated newspapers across the State of U.P. for enabling the candidates, who fall under Rule 8 (2) (d) of Rules of 2008 to make on-line applications for their inter-district transfer. In case any such application would be made by the incumbents, then the process would be ensured strictly in accordance with law. As it is alleged and there is apprehension that pick and choose policy would be adopted in the transfer. In such a situation the Court is of the considered opinion that for ensuring fair play and transparency, the Secretary (Basic Education), Government of UP, Lucknow as well as Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Allahabad shall monitor the entire transfer process in this regard. In case there is any lapses, irregularities or partiality in this regard, they would be solely responsible. It is made clear that in case any discrimination is done in the transfer, then the higher authority would be at liberty to proceed against the concerned authority in this regard. 
10. With the aforesaid directions/observations, the writ petition is disposed of." 
Consequently, the present petition is also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement dated 6.2.2018 as quoted above. 
Order Date :- 21.2.2018 
Ravi Prakash 
********†*********

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 

?Court No. - 30 

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6348 of 2018 
Petitioner :- Ritu Rastogi 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Srivastava,Bipin Lal Srivastava 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Kumar Singh 

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. 
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents and Sri Pankaj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent and have perused the record. 
At the very outset, learned counsel for the parties agree that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is fully covered by a decision of this Court dated 6.2.2018 passed in Writ-A No. 2868 of 2018 (Bibha Singh Kushwaha and 21 others vs. State of U.P.). 
The relevant extract of the aforesaid judgement dated 6.2.2018 is quoted hereinunder:- 
"9. Once the assurance has been given, then this Court hopes and trusts that in the light of the order dated 5.2.2018 and the consequential order dated 6.2.2018 the respondent authority would proceed in the matter and very soon the publication would be made in the widely circulated newspapers across the State of U.P. for enabling the candidates, who fall under Rule 8 (2) (d) of Rules of 2008 to make on-line applications for their inter-district transfer. In case any such application would be made by the incumbents, then the process would be ensured strictly in accordance with law. As it is alleged and there is apprehension that pick and choose policy would be adopted in the transfer. In such a situation the Court is of the considered opinion that for ensuring fair play and transparency, the Secretary (Basic Education), Government of UP, Lucknow as well as Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Allahabad shall monitor the entire transfer process in this regard. In case there is any lapses, irregularities or partiality in this regard, they would be solely responsible. It is made clear that in case any discrimination is done in the transfer, then the higher authority would be at liberty to proceed against the concerned authority in this regard. 
10. With the aforesaid directions/observations, the writ petition is disposed of." 
Consequently, the present petition is also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement dated 6.2.2018 as quoted above. 
Order Date :- 21.2.2018 

Ravi Prakash 


 UPTET  / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates /   Teacher Recruitment  / शिक्षक भर्ती /  SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS  
UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
 Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825  Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825  Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825  Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825  Teacher Recruitment  Uptet News Hindi | 72825  Teacher Recruitment  Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,

CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET  ,
Rajasthan TET /  RTET,  BETET / Bihar TET,   PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET
 

सरकारी सेवा में कार्यरत पति -पत्नी को स्थानांतरण में मिलेगी प्रमुखता ,विशेष परिस्थिति कारण देखिये :

सरकारी सेवा में कार्यरत पति -पत्नी को स्थानांतरण में मिलेगी प्रमुखता ,विशेष परिस्थिति कारण देखिये :

5 मुख्य कारण देखें :-


1. उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार की नीति है की सरकारी सेवा में कार्यरत पति पत्नी को यथा संभव एक ही स्थान पर पोस्टिंग दें :-
दूसरी तरफ बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग ने महिलाओं को जिस विशेष परिस्थिति में आवेदन का मौका दिया है, वो पति पत्नी आधार के केसेस के कोर्ट में याचिकाओं की वजह से दिया , क्योंकि विशेष परिस्थिति स्पष्ट थी - साथ आने के लिए पति अपनी नौकरी छोड़े या फिर पत्नी , या फिर दोनों को एक जगह पोस्ट किया जाए | 

पति पत्नी सरकारी सेवा में  होने पर एक जगह पोस्टिंग के नियम कानून पहले से बने हैं ,  बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार की नीतियों के विरुध्द तो जायेगा नहीं , कोर्ट की याचिकाएं भी इन्हीं कारणों को देख कर महिलाओं को मौका देकर निपटाई गयी हैं 

अगले बिंदु में देखेंगे की देश के अदालत क्या कहती है इस पर 

See UP Govt Transfer Policy : https://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.in/2017/07/2015-up-government-employee-transfer.html

2. केंद्रीय प्रशासनिक न्यायाधिकरण ने एक महत्वपूर्ण फैसले में कहा है -
(सोशल मीडिया से फैसले की मिली जानकारी )

की  DOPT ने   OM dated  30.09.2009 में वर्किंग कपल (पति पत्नी) को यथा संभव  एक ही जगह पोस्टिंग देने की गाइड लाइन फ्रेम की हुई है , वस्तुत यह गाइड लाइन मेंडेटरी करने पर विचार था , क्योंकि चाइल्ड केयर लीव का भी सिक्स्थ पे कमीशन प्रावधान कर दिया गया था ,
अगर OM को सम्पूर्ण रूप में पढ़ा जाये तो पति पत्नी को एक ही स्थान पर पोस्टिंग को कहती है | 

प्रशासनिक मजबूरियों या सार्वजनिक हित यदि जरुरी हैं तब भले ही पति पत्नी को अलग अलग स्थानों पर पोस्टिंग पर रखा जाए लेकिन सिर्फ अपवाद स्वरुप मामलों में / दुर्लभ मामलों के सम्बन्ध में और याचिका में सरकार इस तरह का कारण नहीं बता सकी, और इस प्रकार याची के पक्ष में फैसला  देते हुए  पति पत्नी को साथ रखने के फैसले पर निर्णय दिया 

Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Original Application ... vs Jagdish Kaur 2013 (2) Scc (L&S) ... on 18 September, 2014
      
 RESERVED 

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD

(THIS THE        DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014)

Present
HON BLE MS. JASMINE AHMED, MEMBER (J)

Original Application No.330/01090 OF 2014 
(U/S 19, Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985)
Gyan Chandra Sharma, aged about 54 years, S/o Sadanand Sharma, R/o House No.3, Village-Bholepur, PS-Fatehgarh, District-Farukhabad.
Applicant  
         
V E R S U S

1. Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager (P), Eastern Railway, Izzatnagar.
3. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Izzatnagar.
4. The Sr. Section Engineer (Sig.), Eastern Railway, Fatehgarh.

..Respondents

Advocates for the Applicant:- Shri L.M. Singh 
Advocate for the Respondents:- Shri  A. Tripathi


O R D E R
DELIVERED BY HON BLE MS. JASMINE AHMED, MEMBER (J) Shri L.M. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Avnish Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The applicant was initially appointed as a Telephone Operator on 16.9.1997 with the Railway. In the year 2002 due to administrative reason the post of Telephone Operator got surrendered and due to that circumstances the applicant was absorbed against the post of TCM-III on 26.7.2002 but the applicant did not accept the post as similarly situated persons were absorbed against Group C post i.e. Assistant Clerk. Consequently, the applicant was also absorbed against the post of Assistant Clerk and was posted at Fatehgarh during the year 2005.

3. This is the second round of litigation. The applicant preferred OA No.330/00777/2014 challenging the transfer order dated 23.4.2014 whereby he was transferred from Izzatnagar to Mathura. After getting the transfer order the applicant preferred a representation dated 1.5.2014. The OA was disposed of on 24.6.2014 with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the applicant dated 1.5.2014 as expeditiously as possible by a reasoned and speaking order. The court also granted an interim measure of status-quo as on date in favour of the applicant till the time the representation is decided, and directed not to disturb the applicant. In pursuance of the order dated 24.6.2014 the respondents have passed an order dated 4.8.2014 rejecting the request of the applicant which resulted the present original application.

4. The counsel for the applicant is challenging the legality and validity of the transfer order dated 23.4.2014 passed by the respondent no.2 as well as the rejection of representation dated 4.8.2014 passed by respondent no.3. The applicant states that his wife is a working lady who is working as Assistant Teacher in the Education department under the State Government in Prathamik Vidyalaya, Chawki, Mahmudpur, Kamalganj, Farrukhabad. Prior to posting at Farrukhabad the wife of the applicant was posted at Lalitpur and taking into consideration the spouse ground she was posted at Farrukhabad from Lalitpur vide transfer order dated 12.10.2000 and on 13.10.2000 she joined her duty. Now the applicant has been transferred from Fatehgarh (Farrukhabad) to Mathura.

5. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that taking into consideration that the wife of the applicant is posted at Farrukhabad he should not be transferred out from Farrukhabad as the O.M dated 30.9.2009 issued from Department of Personnel and Training in respect of posting of husband and wife at the same station says that to enhance the status of women in all walk of life and to enable them to lead a normal family life, also at the same time, to ensure education and welfare of the children till the children attain the age of 18 years husband and wife may be posted at the same station. While bringing in this O.M., Government even thought of making the provision of posting at the same station mandatory. While reviewing the issue of posting of husband and wife at same station Government has taken into considerations the 6th CPC Report, where Govt. Servants have already been allowed the facility of child care Leave which is admissible till the children attain 18 years of age. Adhering with this principle of Care , on the similar lines, consolidated guidelines of provisions about posting of the working spouse has been formulated. The counsel for the applicant also stated that in absence of statutory rules, relevant government orders would hold good and in this regard he places reliance on the judgment passed by Hon ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Others Versus Jagdish Kaur 2013 (2) SCC (L&S) 257. And he states that the O.M. dated 30.9.2009 shall be followed and adhered in its letter and spirit while passing transfer orders.

6. In the similar line of the O.M. from the DOP&T dated 30.9.2009 respondent no.2 has already issued a letter dated 1.6.2006 with the same principle in respect of posting of husband and wife at the same station with a clear stipulation/intention to ensure the posting of working couples in Grade C & D in the same station.

7. The counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the applicant and says that if this is so, then the respondents would be restrained to transfer the applicant anywhere anytime from the present place of posting where he is enjoying a stay of long 17 years i.e. Fatehgarh/Farrukhabad. He also states that this will hamper in the routine/periodical transfer and this type of problems will be there with other government employees also. As the transfer is an incidence of service hence the applicant every time cannot take shelter of the spouse ground.

8. Heard the rival contentions of the parties, perused the documents and pleadings available on record.

9. Though the Hon ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has held that as transfer is an incidence of service hence generally it should not be interfered into, unless until the order is arbitrary, punitive, against the statutory provisions or in exercise of colorable powers, irrespective of that, transfer orders are challenged and assailed time and again before the courts of law and orders have been passed taking into consideration facts and circumstances of each case. With the changing scenario, when more and more ladies are joining the bigger world leaving the comfort of their cozy home, the government as a model employer and a welfare state taking into consideration this advancement, provided some facilities for working women just to help them to lead a normal healthy family life and also to ensure that the children who are the future of the world/society shall not be deprived of the affection and care of the mother till they are attaining the age of 18 years. It cannot be said that while making this provision the government was not aware about the catena of judgments not to interfere in the transfer order. Instead of that, the government has made special provisions for working spouses by O.M. dated 30.09.2009 to encourage the increase of representations of women in every walk of life especially in government jobs. The government has made and categorized certain provisions for the working spouses in O.M. dated 30.9.2009. The subject, theme and the spirit in the overall guidelines for posting of husband and wife as envisaged is very categorical:

Subject:Posting of husband and wife at the same station.

The subject itself equivocally without any ambiguity speaks about posting of husband and wife in a same station. The Railway Board by their letter dated 1.6.2006 had already issued direction about posting of husband wife in group C and D category Railway employees in the same station. In a very clear term, it also stated that even if the categories of the employees are changed, it shall be ensured (,d LFkku ij iRuh vkSj ifr dh rSukrh lqfuf pr dh tk;A) that the husband and wife are posted at the same station.

10. While rejecting the representation of the applicant, the respondents have taken three pleas.

(i) The applicant is posted at Fatehgarh almost for 17 years. .

(ii) To make time bound transfers and adjustments.

(iii) The wife may request her employer for her transfer.

The above stated reasons are seems to be vague and unsubstantiated ground, showing no administrative exigency. When the post is there, and the work of the applicant is also satisfactory, only on the ground that he is there for a long time or to make time bound periodical transfers, the applicant needs to be transferred hold no justification. Nor does the wife need to request for her transfer to the place where her husband has been transferred. None of these reasons seem to be very urgent administrative nature which cannot be done away otherwise without transferring the applicant.

11. The motive behind the O.M. dated 30.9.2009 though not very categorically transcribed as mandatory but the theme & spirit behind the issuing of this O.M. is almost mandatory in nature. Clause 4(vii) categorically prescribes how to deal with the issue of transfer when one spouse is employed under the central Government and the other spouse is employed under the State Government:-

The spouse employed under the Central Government may apply to the competent authority and the competent authority may post the said officer to the station or if there is no post in that station to the State where the other spouse is posted.

12. In clause 5 of the O.M. dated 30.09.2009 government has also dealt into about unaccomodative attitude of employers at times, and directed as under:-

5.Complaints are sometimes received that even if posts are available in the station of posting of the spouse, the administrative authorities do not accommodate the employees citing administrative reasons. In all such cases, the cadre controlling authority should strive to post the employee at the station of the spouse and in case of inability to do so, specific reasons, therefore, may be communicated to the employee.

13. The reasons given by the respondents rejecting the request do not reflect that kind of administrative exigencies which cannot be mete out without transferring the applicant.

14. In Deepa Vaishistha Versus State of U.P. 1996(1) ESC 148 (All-DB) it has been categorically held that:-

If the administrative exigencies or public interest so requires, certainly husband and wife may be transferred to different places but only in exceptional cases i.e. in respect of rare cases, for which no illustration can be given.

But now a days it is invariably seen that for the reasons best known to the department, this kind of transfers are being made disturbing the couple. In the opinion of this court, as such practice needs to be deprecated.

15. In view of the entire above discussions the transfer order dated 23.4.2014 in respect of the applicant and the rejection order dated 4.8.2014 of his representation is quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the OA is allowed. No Costs.

[Jasmine Ahmed] Member-J /ns/ ??
******************************************

3. बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग में भी कई फैसलों में वर्किंग कपल (पति पत्नी) को साथ रखने के फैसले पर निर्णय आ चुके हैं , और इन्ही फैसलों के आधार पर महिलाओं 
को विशेष परिस्थिति में ट्रांसफर आवेदन का मौका मिला है | 

**************
पति पत्नी दोनों के सरकारी सेवा में होने पर एक ही स्थान पर नियुक्ति का आदेश - इलाहबाद हाई कोर्ट

https://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.in/2015/11/uptet-sarkari-naukri-news_0.html
*****
इसी नजीर फैसले के आधार पर बिभा सिंह कुशवाह केस जीती थी :
पति पत्नी दोनों के सरकारी सेवा में होने पर एक ही स्थान पर नियुक्ति का आदेश 
https://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.in/2015/11/uptet-sarkari-naukri-news-husband-and.html

************************************************

4. पति पत्नी को एक स्थान पर पोस्टिंग देने का इलाहबाद हाई कोर्ट का स्पष्ट आदेश देखें , अगर कोई प्रशासनिक अड़चन , नियम क़ानूनी अड़चन न हो तो 
ट्रांसफर देने में कोई समस्या नहीं, 

Click here to see order
What kind of perplexities and difficulties, a spouse could confront with in the event of another being posted at a different place, can easily be imagined by anyone by putting himself/herself in that situation and then it would be realised that now torturous and painful it really is, to leave husband and children at one place and to lead a solitary life at the transfer place. Therefore, to avoid such disturbance and mental agony, the aforesaid guide­lines are framed

5. बिभा सिंह कुशवाह के फैसले में कोर्ट ने कहा की  केंद्र व् राज्य सरकार की स्थानांतरण नीति में पति पत्नी को एक ही स्थान पर पोस्टिंग का स्पष्ट प्रावधान है और इसी आधार पर नियम 2008 का प्रावधान किया है :-

It is trite that in most of the services of the Central Government and the State Governments, there is provision in their transfer policy that an endeavour should be made that husband and wife may be posted at the same place. In view of the said principle, under the Rules 2008 the provision of the couple posting has been incorporated. 
https://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.in/2017/10/breaking-news-5.html





 UPTET  / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates /   Teacher Recruitment  / शिक्षक भर्ती /  SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS  
UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
 Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825  Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825  Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825  Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825  Teacher Recruitment  Uptet News Hindi | 72825  Teacher Recruitment  Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,

CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET  ,
Rajasthan TET /  RTET,  BETET / Bihar TET,   PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET