- (1.) Father of respondent no.4 was employed in the petitioner Madarsa and he is stated to have died in harness on 17.3.2016. A claim for grant of compassionate appointment apparently was made relying upon regulations introduced for the first time in the statute book on 22.7.2016. A direction has been issued on 21st December, 2018 by the Registrar/Inspector requiring the petitioner Committee of Management to issue necessary orders of compassionate appointment to respondent no.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue as to whether Uttar Pradesh Non-Governmental Arabic and Persian Madrasa Recognition, Administration and Services Regulation, 2016, introduced on 22.7.2016, would have any retrospective application fell for consideration before this Court in Special Appeal No.264 of 2017, in which following orders have been passed on 9.5.2017:- "........ Accepted position in the present case is that father of petitioner-appellant has died in the year 2012, and at the said point of time, when father of petitioner-appellant has died, there was no provision under which compassionate appointment could have been provided to the dependent of the deceased incumbent who have been serving in Government aided Madarsa. Service conditions at the said point of time was governed by non-statutory rule known as 'Uttar Pradesh Ashaskeeya Arbi Tatha Fasi Madarson Ki Manata Niyamawali, 1987. On the date of death of petitioner-appellant's father, there was no provision in existence for offering appointment, is clearly indicative of the fact that the terms and condition of service that has been prevailing on the said date, there has been no provision for providing compassionate appointment, in case incumbent had died in harness.
(2.) Rules in question namely, Uttar Pradesh Non-Governmental Arbic and Persian Madarsa Recognition, Administration and Services Regulation, 2016 has been enforced w.e.f. 22.07.2016 wherein categorical mention has been made that it shall came into force from the date of notification in the gazette. Part-III of aforementioned Regulations deals with teaching and non-teaching employees, and in the said chapter while considering the terms and condition of teaching and non-teaching employees, provision has been incorporated for providing compassionate appointment to one of the dependent on death of an employee during service. One dependent has to apply within a period of five years in the Madarsa. Thus these statutory provisions are clear to the effect that for the first time while introducing the terms and condition of teaching and non-teaching employees, the aforementioned provisions has been introduced for providing compassionate appoint on death of employee in Madarsa during service period and dependent was free to move an application within a period of five years. Consequently, under the scheme of things provided for, Regulations are clearly prospective in nature and effect and for the first time time provision has been incorporated for providing compassionate appointment on death of incumbent during service period to one of the dependent under the terms and condition of service, in this backdrop, claim that has been made to provide compassionate under the aforementioned regulation, certainty cannot be directed by us inasmuch as, we cannot proceed to enlarge the scope of aforementioned regulation, as on its face value, it is prospective in nature and would not include within its fold all such teaching and non teaching staff under whose condition of service, there has been no provision for providing compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment has to be considered as per the scheme that has been in vague at the time of death of employee concerned. Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank Vs. Mahesh Kumar 2015(7) SCC 412, has further provided that compassionate appointment cannot be made in the absence of Rules and Regulations, and request has to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. Here the scheme in question introduced by way of Regulation for providing compassionate appointment w.e.f. 22.07.2016 in no way suggests that benefit of the same would be extended even in reference of those employees, teaching and non teaching, whose death has taken place, prior to enforcement of Regulation.
(3.) In view of this, Special Appeal stands dismissed." Submission is that the direction issued for appointment of respondent no.4 is in teeth of the aforesaid law. ;