In a glaring instance of bureaucratic apathy, the Allahabad High Court has summoned a personal explanation from the Director of Education (Basic), Uttar Pradesh, regarding the initiation of dismissal proceedings against a government teacher more than a year after his death.
The bench of Justice Prakash Padia, hearing a writ petition filed by the deceased teacher’s widow, expressed shock at the administrative lapse and directed the Director to file a personal affidavit explaining how such an order was passed.
The matter reached the High Court after Priti Saxena, the widow of late Mukul Saxena, approached the court challenging the stoppage of her family pension.
Mukul Saxena was appointed as an assistant teacher in a primary school on compassionate grounds in 1996, joining the service on October 25, 1996. He served for over two decades before succumbing to the Covid-19 pandemic on May 31, 2021. Following his demise, his wife began receiving a family pension.
However, the situation took a bizarre turn in late 2022. The petitioner’s pension was abruptly halted in December 2022 following an order by the Additional Director (Treasury and Pension), Kanpur Division.
During the hearing, it was revealed that the stoppage of the pension was based on a chain of correspondence stemming from the Directorate. The Court noted that the Director of Education (Basic) had issued a letter on July 18, 2022—more than 13 months after Saxena’s death—directing the initiation of proceedings to dismiss his services.
Acting on this directive, the District Basic Education Officer, Farrukhabad, wrote to the Finance and Account Officer on September 17, 2022, citing the Director’s order to dismiss the deceased teacher and recommending the cessation of the widow’s pension. Consequently, the pension was stopped via an order dated December 19, 2022.
Justice Prakash Padia took a grim view of the department’s actions, observing that there was nothing on record to suggest that Mukul Saxena’s initial appointment had ever been declared null and void by any authority while he was alive.
Highlighting the legal untenability of the department’s actions, the Court remarked:
“It is settled law that inquiry could not be started against the dead person. In so far as the present case is concerned, it is clear from perusal of record that late Mukul Saxena died due to Covid-19 on May 31, 2021 and for the reason best known to the Director of Education (Basic), UP, letter dated July 18, 2022 was written by him for initiation of proceedings for dismissal of services.”
Terming the authorities’ conduct as “very surprising,” the Court questioned the circumstances under which the dismissal letter was issued against an employee who was no longer alive.
The High Court has ordered the Director of Education (Basic) to file a personal affidavit within a week explaining the anomaly.
The Court warned that if the affidavit is not filed within the stipulated time, the Director must remain present before the Court on the next date of hearing, which is fixed for December 16, 2025.
