Indrajeet Mishra And 18 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 7778 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 33
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21433 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Indrajeet Mishra And 18 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi,Praveen Chandra Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

Order impugned records that a policy decision in the matter of grant of relaxation in the outer age limit for appointment/regularization since has already been taken on 22.2.2019, therefore, a fresh decision in that regard is not required.

Facts, which are in issue, are that petitioners have already been regularized but they have not been allowed joining only on the ground that the matter relating to relaxation of their age for appointment is awaited at the level of State Government.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the Government Order dated 22.2.2019, which contains a policy decision in the matter of such relaxation to be granted to the Seasonal Collection Amin/Peon, there is no requirement of any fresh approval by the State Government. This appears to be correct, inasmuch as the State Government even in the order impugned records that such a decision has already been taken.

Since the petitioners were otherwise found entitled to be regularized, there was no need for the District Collector to have referred the matter all over again to the State Government for the purposes of grant of relaxation in age. The District Magistrate in his communication dated 1.4.2019 has clearly noticed that petitioners are entitled to be regularized but had inadvertently sought relaxation in outer age limit for appointment in ignorance of the previous policy decision taken by the State Government on 22.2.2019.

Noticing all such facts, this Court proceeded to pass following orders on 24.9.2020:-

"This Court by order dated 28.5.2018 in a bunch of writ petitions leading case being Writ A No. 54923 of 2017; Devki Nandan and 17 others v. State of U.P. and 3 others, issued direction to the competent authority under Rule 3 of the U.P. Public Service Commission (Relaxation of Age Limit) Relaxation Rules, 1992 to examine whether there should be relaxation of maximum age of seasonal collection amins and seasonal collection peons as a one time measure in respect of their claims for regularisation of their services. A further direction was issued that for such decision being taken by the competent authority, the State Government would place all relevant material before the competent authority to facilitate formation of opinion as to whether relaxation is to be granted or not and the manner in which the said power is to be exercised. For a period of two months, the District Authorities were restrained from making selection within the quota for regular appointment so that in the meantime the direction issued by this Court are carried out.

In compliance of the above direction, the State Government issued a Government Order dated 22.2.2019 addressed to all District Magistrates in the State wherein it was provided that all seasonal collection amins and seasonal collection peons, whose work and conduct had been satisfactory and who fulfil all other eligibility criteria would be granted age relaxation.

Paragraph 3 of the said government order provided that the age relaxation shall remain confined to the seasonal amins and seasonal peons whose number was quantified by the Commissioner and Secretary, Board of Revenue vide his letter dated 20.9.2018. There was a further rider that for availing benefit of the government order, person should have been in employment since before the year 2001. Para 4 of the government order unequivocally provided that the person availing benefit of relaxation would get the same from the date the District Magistrate passes an order for regularisation and not from any back date.

The specific case of the petitioners is that the list provided by the Commissioner / Secretary, Board of Revenue dated 20.9.2018, omits from mentioning the number of seasonal peons of district Mau. It only specifies the number of seasonal collection amins of district Mau.

On account of similar discrepancies in the list, the order of the Writ Court was not complied with in its true letter and spirit. Therefore, contempt application no. 3442 of 2019 was filed which was disposed of by order dated 20.8.2019 granting further time to the State-respondents to comply with the order of the Writ Court. Thereafter, for ensuring full compliance of the direction issued by the Writ Court, a selection committee was constituted and it found 41 persons suitable. Out of 41 persons, 9 were below 45 years of age, consequently they were given joining immediately but in respect of 32 others including the petitioners, the District Magistrate sent a proposal to the State Government vide letter dated 1.4.2019 for giving age relaxation. The impugned order has now been passed mentioning that as per the policy decision, only those whose names were included in the letter of the Commissioner / Secretary, Board of Revenue dated 20.9.2018 would be regularised and not other person. The order fails to take into consideration the fact that this Court in its judgment dated 28.5.2018 had directed for laying down guidelines for age relaxation because the exercise relating to regularisation, which under relevant rules was supposed to be carried out every year, was infact not done. The selection committee at the district level having found the petitioners meeting all criteria laid down in the government order dated 22.2.2019 should itself have directed their regularisation. The obtaining of formal permission was only on account of the mistake in the list provided by the Board of Revenue dated 20.9.2018 and the recital in para 3 of the government order dated 22.2.2019 however, in totally mechanical manner the impugned order has been passed.

Learned Standing Counsel seeks time to study the matter and answer to the above issues.

As prayed, list in the additional cause list on 29.9.2020."

Though the matter has been repeatedly adjourned but learned Standing Counsel has not been able to explain the observations made in the above order. The recital contained in the order impugned that a policy decision for age relaxation has already been taken on 22.2.2019 otherwise remains intact.

In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction upon the District Magistrate concerned to act in terms of the Government Order dated 22.2.2019 and proceed to consider petitioners' claim, afresh, without insisting upon any order from the State Government with regard to age relaxation. The previous orders of the District Magistrate dated 28.3.2019 and 1.4.2019 shall be given effect to in light of the above observations, within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of a copy of this order. In case persons junior to petitioners have already been given the benefit of regularization, the respondents will also consider grant of such notional benefit to petitioners from the date such benefits have been given to their juniors.

Writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.

The concerned Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of computerized copy of this order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall act accordingly without waiting for submission of the certified copy of this order.

Order Date :- 12.7.2021

Anil