HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 5799 of 2025 Court No. - 28 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Shyam Narain Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and Shri Shaharsh Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 and 3. 2. The instant petition has been filed with the prayer to stay the operation of impugned order dated 09.04.2025 passed by respondent no.3. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Vikram Singh Junior High School, Prithvipur, Chhibramau, District- Kannauj was given grant-in-aid for junior high school. The mother of the petitioner was regular clerk in the office of respondent no.4 i.e. Vikram Singh Junior High School, Prithvipur, Chhibramau, District- Kannauj and she was getting salary from the State exchequer. The mother of the petitioner died on 30.09.2018, the petitioner being son of late Smt. Uma Sangen applied for appointment under the Dying-in-harness Rules. The appointment of the petitioner has been denied on the grounds that (i) the school is not on grant-in-aid and (ii) that the mother of the petitioner, who was appointed, is daughter-in-law of the then Manager, therefore, the appointment could not have been made. 4. It has been submitted that respondent no.1 withdrew the grant-in-aid vide order dated 15.03.2013, which was challenged by the Committee of Management in Writ Petition No.3022 of 2013, M/S C/M Vikram Singh Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jitendra Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shyam Narain Singh Onkar Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Edu. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Vidyalaya Vs. State of UP and the same was allowed vide impugned order dated 29.05.2019, with liberty to the State to proceed against the teaching and non-teaching staff in the school, who were related to the Management at the time of their appointment and it was also specifically provided that all the other teaching and non-teaching staff in the school cannot be made to suffer. Against the said order dated 29.05.2019, the State filed Special Appeal (Defective) No.152 of 2025 and the said appeal was also dismissed on 11.04.2025 but the order dated 29.05.2019 was not complied with. Therefore, the Contempt Application (Civil) No.1668 of 2023; C/M, Vikram Singh Vidyalaya, Thru. Its Manager Munna Lal Vs. Dr. Mahindra Dev Singh, Director Basic Education, U.P., Nishatganj, Lucknow was preferred, in which, order dated 06.01.2025 was passed for personal appearance of Director, Basic Education. 5. The Director, Basic Education wrote letters dated 14.02.2025 and 20.02.2025 to respondent no.2 for restoration of grant-in-aid in compliance of the order dated 29.05.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.3022 of 2013 (supra). 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the verdict has been given by the Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench that the institution is entitled for grant-in-aid then there is no question to deny the benefit and at the moment, it is deemed that the school is in grant-in-aid. The second ground is that the mother of the petitioner is no more and had she been alive, she could have answered, as to whether, she was legally appointed or not, whereas she is no more, therefore, this question cannot be raised at this stage. 7. Learned Standing Counsel has reiterated the grounds which are mentioned in the impugned order and has submitted that the school is well not on grant-in-aid and has further submitted that the mother of the petitioner was daughter-in-law of the then Manager, therefore, she could not have been appointed. He has further submitted that against the order dated 11.04.2025 passed in Special Appeal (Defective) No.152 of 2025, an SLP has been filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court but he is unable to apprise the Court, as to whether, any interim order has been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLP. WRIA No. 5799 of 2025 2 8. In reply to the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the SLP has been preferred but no interim order has been passed till date. 9. Considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and after going through the record, I find that the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench has considered the issue of grant-in-aid The Single Judge has passed detailed order, wherein, it is provided that the order of withdrawal of the grant-in-aid is not in accordance with law, therefore, the Single Judge has quashed the order. The position is now clear that the school is on grant-in-aid and whether the State has passed any order in compliance of the order for grant-in-aid is not an issue before me. The issue is that once the Single Judge's judgement is affirmed by Division Bench then it is deemed that a school is in grant-in-aid. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I provide that the case of the appointment of the petitioner shall be considered under the Dying-in- harness Rules and a fresh consideration will be done within a period of four weeks from today. 11. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 09.04.2025 is hereby set aside. October 6, 2025 V. Sinha WRIA No. 5799 of 2025 3 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench