The Allahabad High Court recorded its strong surprise and concern after discovering that the State education authorities had initiated dismissal proceedings against an Assistant Teacher more than a year after he had died due to COVID-19. The matter came before the Court through a petition filed by the deceased teacher’s widow. The late teacher had been serving as an Assistant Teacher in a primary school and passed away in May 2021. Following his death, his widow began receiving a family pension, which continued until November 2022. However, her pension was abruptly stopped based on an official directive issued long after the teacher’s death.
The sudden termination of pension stemmed from a communication issued by the District Basic Education Officer, who referred to a direction from the Director of Education (Basic) dated July 18, 2022. That directive ordered the dismissal of the teacher from service despite his having died more than a year earlier. Acting on this communication, the Additional Director, Treasury and Pension, Kanpur Mandal, issued an order in December 2022 terminating the widow’s family pension benefits. The widow then approached the High Court seeking relief from this action.
In the proceedings before the Court, the authorities attempted to justify the dismissal order by alleging that the teacher had secured his appointment using forged documents. They argued that because the appointment was fraudulent, it was void from the beginning, and therefore the dismissal in July 2022 was merely a formal confirmation of the illegality. The Court, however, rejected this explanation, noting that no authority had ever declared the teacher’s appointment invalid during his lifetime. No disciplinary proceedings were initiated while he was alive, and there was no record of any earlier steps to treat his appointment as null and void.
Justice Prakash Padia, hearing the matter, observed that proceedings against a deceased person are impermissible and contrary to established legal principles. The Court expressed disbelief that the authorities had waited until long after the teacher’s death to issue a dismissal letter, despite having had the opportunity to take such action during his lifetime if they believed the appointment was fraudulent. The Court found no justification for the issuance of the July 2022 directive and questioned the legal basis for such an action.
The Court directed the Director of Education (Basic), Uttar Pradesh, to file a personal affidavit explaining the circumstances in which he issued the dismissal direction against a person who had already passed away. The Court made it clear that failure to submit the affidavit within the stipulated period would require the Director to appear personally. The matter has been listed for the next hearing, during which the Court expects a full explanation for the actions taken by the authorities.
Through this order, the High Court underscored the seriousness of proceeding against a deceased individual and highlighted the administrative lapse that led to the unwarranted termination of pension benefits for the widow.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.