Allahabad High Court
State Of ... vs Pankaj Srivastava 7580(S/S)2009 on 3 December, 2013
Bench: Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, Chief Justice, Devendra Kumar Arora
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
AFR
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 845 of 2013
Appellant :- State Of U.P.Throu.Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of Revenue Lko.& Ors.
Respondent :- Pankaj Srivastava 7580(S/S)2009
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- Ramesh Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Arora,J.
The special appeal arises from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 04 October 2013. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has quashed the decision, which was taken in a meeting of a Selection Committee dated 15 December 2001 for considering the regularization of the services of the respondent as a Collection Amin against a 35% quota prescribed for regular appointment on the post of Collection Amin from amongst the Seasonal Collection Amins under the U.P. Collection Amins' Service Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1974'). The learned Single Judge has directed consideration afresh. Hence, the State is in appeal.
The respondent worked as a Seasonal Collection Amin since the year 1989 from time to time. He claimed regular appointment on the post of Collection Amin under the Rules, 1974. The State Government has regular posts of Collection Amins and also engages Seasonal Collection Amins. The Seasonal Collection Amins are required to carry out the work of collection of revenue during the Rabi and Khareef crops. A provision was introduced in the Rules,1974 for regularization of Seasonal Collection Amins as Collection Amins against 35% of vacancies. Rule 5 of the Rules, 1974, which provides for regularization, is in the following terms:-
"izfrcU/k ;g gS fd iSarhl izfr'kr fjfDr;kWa ,sls lhtuy dysD'ku vehuksa esa ls p;u }kjk Hkjh tk;saxh&
(d) ftUgksaaus de ls de pkj Qlyksa rd lUrks"ktud :i ls dk;Z fd;k gks ;
([k) ftudh vk;q ml o"kZ dh igyh tqykbZ dks] ftl o"kZ p;u fd;k tk;] 45 o"kZ ls vf/kd u gks%
izfrcU/k ;g Hkh gS fd ;fn mi;qDr vH;FkhZ miyC/k u gksa rks 'ks"k fjfDr;kWa lh/kh HkrhZ ds ek/;e ls lkekU; vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk Hkjh tk;saxhA
Li"Vhdj.k& lUrks"ktud dk;Z dk rkRi;Z gksxk 'kq: ls vUr rd vPNs vkpj.k dks lfEefyr djrs gq, vfUre pkj Qlyksa ds nkSjku fofgr Lrj ds vuqlkj de ls de lRrj izfr'kr olwyhA"
Earlier the respondent had filed a writ petition (Writ Petition No.3280 (S/S) of 2001) since his claim for regularization had not been considered. By a judgment and order dated 12 July 2001, a learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the petition with a direction that the claim of the respondent for regularization shall be considered in accordance with the relevant Government Orders and the Rules against 35% of the total vacancies. Since in pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 12 July 2001 no intimation was furnished to the respondent, he initiated contempt proceedings before this Court. In the contempt proceedings, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State on 12 October 2009 in which there was a disclosure that the claim of the respondent for regularization had been considered and rejected by the Selection Committee in its meeting dated 15 December 2001. Thereupon, the respondent instituted another petition challenging the decision of the Selection Committee in 2009. The only ground on which the Selection Committee rejected the claim of the respondent was that he was not working as a Seasonal Collection Amin on the date on which the claim was considered (the exact words used by the Selection Committee being "dk;Zjr ugha"). When the petition was filed before the learned Single Judge, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State in which, besides the ground which weighed with the Selection Committee, an additional ground was sought to be taken, namely, that the performance of the respondent was not commensurate with the requirement spelt out in the explanation to Rule 5 of the Rules, 1974.
The learned Single Judge held that the ground which weighed with the Selection Committee, namely, that the respondent was not working on the date of consideration, was extraneous to Rule 5 of the Rules, 1974 since the Rules do not contain any such requirement. The learned Single Judge noted that the additional ground, which was urged in the counter affidavit in regard to the lack of performance, had not weighed with the Selection Committee. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge set aside the decision of the Selection Committee dated 15 December 2001 and directed a fresh consideration of the claim of the respondent. However, the learned Single Judge clarified that as regards the figures of recovery, there was a Circular of the Board of Revenue dated 29 September 2000, by which the percentage of realization/recovery made by the Seasonal Collection Amins must be calculated in relation to the total demand which was entrusted to the given individual.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the finding of the learned Single Judge that there is no requirement in the Rules to the effect that the Seasonal Collection Amin should be working on the date of consideration of his proposal is erroneous. It was sought to be urged that the explanation to Rule 5 of the Rules, 1974 defines satisfactory service as the extent of recovery in the last four fasals. Hence, it is urged that the expression 'last four fasals' if duly taken note of, should mean the last four fasals immediately before consideration of the claim for regularization by the Selection Committee.
In assessing the submission, which is urged on behalf of the State, Rule 5 of the Rules, 1974, as it held the field at the material time, has to be interpreted. As noted earlier, the Rule contemplates regularization of the Seasonal Collection Amins against 35% of the vacancies. The Rule prescribes the following conditions, namely, (i) the Seasonal Collection Amins must have rendered satisfactory work in at least four fasals; and (ii) the Seasonal Collection Amins should not have attained the age of 45 years by the 1st July of the relevant year. The explanation states that 'satisfactory service' would mean that in the last four fasals, the Seasonal Collection Amins should have attained the recovery in accordance with the prescribed norms of at least 70%. Now the explanation has to be harmoniously construed with the main provision which is made in the Rules of 1974. The requirement of the Rules is that the Seasonal Collection Amins should have worked for at least four fasals. Where a Seasonal Collection Amin has worked for more than four fasals, in assessing whether he has rendered satisfactory performance within the meaning of the explanation, the extent of recovery has to be assessed with reference to the last four fasals during which he has worked. In a situation where the Seasonal Collection Amin has worked for only four fasals, obviously the recovery has to be assessed with reference to those four fasals. Hence, the expression 'last four fasals' would mean the last four fasals out of the total number of fasals in which the Seasonal Collection Amin has worked. The last four fasals does not mean that the Seasonal Collection Amin must be actually working on the date on which the Selection Committee applies its mind to the claim for regularization. Such a condition is not found in the Rules and to introduce such a condition, would amount to a modification or amendment of the statutory rule, which is impermissible for this Court. The Rule has to be read as it stands. The learned Single Judge was, in our opinion, correct in holding that the ground which has weighed with the Selection Committee was extraneous to the Rules.
For the reasons indicated above, this finding of the learned Single Judge is correct. Having so held, the learned Single Judge directed consideration afresh by the Selection Committee, which again, in our opinion, is in accordance with law.
The State had filed a counter affidavit before the learned Single Judge in which an additional ground was sought to be set up for denying regularization, namely, that the respondent has not attained the level of recovery of 70% as prescribed in the explanation. This has not weighed with the Selection Committee. However, the learned Single Judge has clarified that this issue would be taken into consideration by the Selection Committee during the course of consideration of the claim of the respondent for regularization, afresh. However, the norms of 70% recovery, as clarified, must relate to the demand which was actually entrusted to the employee. The satisfactory performance has to be read with reference to the work, which is actually entrusted to the Seasonal Collection Amin.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that in the memo of appeal, the State has taken a ground that the respondent would not meet the norms of 70% with reference to the work which was entrusted to him.
We make no observation in this regard since it would be open to the Selection Committee, upon remand, to re-consider the entire issue, namely, as to whether the respondent has rendered satisfactory service and fulfilled the requirement of the norms of 70% recovery with reference to the work which was entrusted to him as prescribed in the explanation to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974. The time for consideration of the claim of the respondent for regularization is extended by a further period of three months from today.
We find no reason to deviate from the order of the learned Single Judge imposing costs. The learned Single Judge was justifiably dismayed with the conduct of the State in disclosing the minutes of the meeting of the Selection Committee of 2001 only when a contempt petition was filed. The minutes of the meeting of the Selection Committee were not immediately disclosed to the respondent and were disclosed only on the request of the respondent after an inordinate delay. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge imposing costs.
For the aforesaid reasons, we find no error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appeal shall, accordingly, stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 3.12.2013
RKK/-
(D.K. Arora, J) (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJ)
Chief Justice's Court
C.M. Application No.110092 of 2013:
In re:
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 845 of 2013
Appellant :- State Of U.P.Throu.Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of Revenue Lko.& Ors.
Respondent :- Pankaj Srivastava 7580(S/S)2009
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- Ramesh Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Arora,J.
This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
Since sufficient cause has been shown in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application and no objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent to the said application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
The application stands disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 3.12.2013
RKK/-
(D.K. Arora, J) (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJ)
