Allahabad High Court
Shatrughan Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 23 July, 2021
Bench: Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8067 of 2021
Petitioner :- Shatrughan Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar,Raj Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for parties.
Learned Standing Counsel fairly concedes that the order of termination of the petitioner solely on the ground of nil recovery having been made would not sustain in light of the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in State of U.P. And Others Vs. Chandra Prakash Pandey & Others1 as well as the Division Bench of the Court in State of U.P. And Others Vs. Sri Surendra Singh2. In view of the aforesaid, it was submitted that no useful purpose would be served in continuing this petition on the board of this Court and consequently the matter may be disposed of finally.
It becomes pertinent to recall the following pertinent observations as appearing in Chandra Prakash Pandey:
"14. Likewise, in another detailed judgment under Civil Appeal No. 6075 of 1997, rendered by another Division Bench of the High Court upon the matter being remanded by this Court, the Court after due consideration came to the following conclusion:-
"It is not disputed that the appointing authority in case of both is the District Magistrate/Collector, the power to terminate the service of both the categories vests in the same authority, they are amenable to same disciplinary authority, the nature of their duties is the same and they exercise similar power. The Kurk Amin appointed on commission basis similarly enjoys and exercises the power to arrest a person, who is defaulter, can attach his property, which he can put to auction like his counter part on regular basis. A Kurk Amin on commission basis and on regular basis similarly follows the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 and U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 insofar as the recovery of land revenue.
Once the District Magistrate issues a recovery citation both the sets of Kurk Amins in order to execute the recovery follow the same procedure and exercise the powers and they are under the control of one and the same authority. The Kurk Amin, be he on commission basis or on regular basis, gets his salary from the Government exchequer out of 10 per cent collection charges realized as arrears of land revenue. It is, thus, clear that both the sets of Kurk Amins work in the same capacity under the control of the State Government and their appointment and duties fully comply with the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision of State of Gujarat vs. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni , 1983 (2) SCC 33."
15. From a bare perusal of the aforementioned decisions of the two different Benches of the High Court it would be clear that after taking into consideration all relevant factors as laid down by this Court in its judgment referred to above, the High Court has come to the conclusion and recorded a finding of fact that Kurk Amins appointed on commission basis for recovery of outstanding dues of the cooperative societies were members of service and government servants. On behalf of the State, it has not been challenged that the aforesaid statements of facts in the two judgments are incorrect. During the course of arguments learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State made an unsuccessful attempt to refer to a scheme prepared by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, but in view of the fact that neither any counter affidavit was filed before the High Court nor was the said scheme filed before this Court either along with the special leave petitions or with any other affidavit, we are of the opinion that it is not possible for us to look into the said scheme; as such the same can be of no avail to the State by its mere production in court during the course of argument."
The Division Bench of the Court in Sri Surendra Singh held thus:
"While considering the case of the petitioner for regularization on the post of Collection Amin as per the U.P. Collection Amin Service Rules 1974, in view of the observation made hereinabove the appellants may also take into consideration that mere non-achieving of target for collection, bereft of other relevant facts can not be the criterion for achieving efficiency for the purpose of regularization as observed by this Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Asthana V. Collector, Azamgarh and others, 2001 (1) ESC 340 and Brijesh Kumar Vs. Collector/District Magistrate Manpuri and others, (2001) 3 UPLBEC 2544, relevant portion of para 8 of the case of Dinesh Kumar Asthana (Supra) reads as under:-
"This Court has no means to find out whether the recovery in a particular year with respect to the petitioner was low for reason other than this own efficiency. It is very relevant circumstance while considering the efficiency of Seasonal Collection Amin. For example, recovery is not possible beyond a certain limit for various factors and reasons like-orders from Court, the total extent of recovery to be made in one's area and/or whether Government itself kept recovery in abeyance due to famine, flood, drought etc. These will be relevant consideration to be taken into account and a Seasonal Collection Amin, being put to sufferance for reasons beyond his control, cannot be non-suited for low recovery as it does not reflect at all upon his efficiency."
Both the aforesaid decisions have clearly held that the services of a Kurk Amin cannot be dispensed with solely on the ground of a nil or low recovery percentage. In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds itself unable to uphold the order passed by the District Magistrate.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 15 January 2020 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential reliefs.
Order Date :- 23.7.2021
Arun K. Singh
(Yashwant Varma, J.)
