Ajay Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 10581 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 17
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7626 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Civil Sectt. Up Lko. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Pratap Singh,Lakshmana Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

Heard Shri Lakshmana Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 13.10.2022 passed by the State Government and further prayer has been made for a writ of mandamus to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Collection Amin from the date when junior to the petitioner namely Shri Hari Shanker Pandey was regularized.

The petitioner was initially appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin on 18.08.1988 and he continued to work up to 30.09.2005 as Seasonal Collection Amin in Tehsil-Musafirkhana (earlier in District Sultanpur), District Amethi.

A list was prepared on 30.09.2003 of the Seasonal Collection Amins for regularizing them on the post of Collection Amin on the basis of work of four fasli years. In the said list petitioner's recovery was shown to be more than 70% in the last four fasli years i.e. 1409 and 1410. In the 1410 fasli his recovery percentage dropped to 60.55%.

The interview for considering the regularization of Seasonal Collection Amins to the post of Collection Amin was held on 29.08.2004. After interview, 14 persons (7 general and 7 reserved category) were regularized but petitioner was not regularized and it is said the one-Shri Hari Shanker Pandey was also regularized but his recovery in fasli 1410 was 66.74% which fell short of 70% as was the case of the petitioner.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.2405 (S/S) of 2005 before this Court seeking a writ/direction in the nature of mandamus; The said Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dated 20.07.2011 modified on 15.02.2012, with a direction to District Magistrate Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj Nagar (now Amethi) (hereinafter referred to as "CSM Nagar") to consider petitioner's case in any district for regular appointment and the said exercise should be completed within a period of one month. The District Magistrate, CSM Nagar, however, rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 14.10.2011 on the ground that under the 35% quota of Seasonal Collection Amin, there were seven posts available for general category Seasonal Collection Amin for regularization. It was also said that Shri Hari Shanker Pandey was regularized vide order dated 04.11.2004 passed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur after carving out of new district i.e. District-CSM Nagar on 01.07.2010 no Seasonal Collection Amin was regularized on the post of Collection Amin. It was further said out of 127 post of the Collection Amin in District- CSM Nagar and 35% has come to 44 posts only and against the said 44 posts meant for Seasonal Collection Amin, 77 persons have been regularized. It was said that there was no post vacant on which the petitioner could have been regularized, therefore, his claim for regularization was rejected.

The petitioner aggrieved by the said order passed by the District Magistrate, CSM Nagar dated 14.10.2011 filed an application for modifying the order dated 20.07.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.2405 (S/S) of 2005 and this Court vide order dated 15.02.2012 directed the District Magistrate, Sultanpur and District Magistrate, CSM Nagar to consider the petitioner's claim for regularization in any of the two districts.

The District Magistrate, CSM Nagar (now Amethi) again rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 14.03.2012 on the ground that petitioner's performance as Seasonal Collection for fasli year 1410 and 1411 was less than 70%. In respect of Shri Hari Shanker Pandey who got regularized, it was said that if his recovery for fasli year 1410 would be found to less than 70% then his case would be reconsidered in respect of his regularization.

Thereafter, to consider the case of the petitioner, a Committee under the Chairmanship of Additional District Magistrate, Finance and Revenue was constituted to reconsider the case of Shri Hari Shanker Pandey and the said Committee was directed to submit its report after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and Shri Hari Shanker Pandey.

The petitioner, thereafter filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.2597 (S/S) of 2012 before this Court impugning the order dated 14.03.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, CSM Nagar (now Amethi). The said writ petition came to be allowed vide a detailed and judgment and order dated 25.09.2013. The operative part of the said order would read as under:-

"Keeping in view the above said facts, the impugned order passed by District Magistrate, Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj, Nagar thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization on one of the ground that the recovery made by him in last four fasli year is less then 70 % is contrary to law, liable to be set aside to the said extent.

For the forgoing reasons the impugned order dated 14.03.2012 ( Annexure no.1) passed by opposite party no.4/District Magistrate, Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj, Nagar is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the said authority to decide a fresh in accordance with law in view of the observation made herein above. The said exercise shall be done expeditiously, say, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

With the above observation, the writ petition is allowed."

Thus, the matter was remanded back to the District Magistrate, CSM Nagar (now Amethi) to decide afresh the case of the petitioner for regularization in accordance with law and in view of the observations made in the said order in respect of recovery.

The District Magistrate, CSM Nagar (now Amethi) vide order dated 3/4.12.2013 again rejected the claim of the petitioner for regularization. In the said order dated 3/4.12.2013 a new ground was taken that as per the government order dated 24.09.2012 bearing No.815/1-7-2012-135/2012 of Revenue Division and the Government order of Personal Department dated 15.03.2012, there was ban for making fresh appointments, therefore, the petitioner's case for regularization could not be considered as it would be in violation of the said government orders. The next ground which was taken that the petitioner's performance in the last four fasli years was not satisfactory. The third ground which was taken that in District CSM Nagar (now Amethi) there were total 100 sanctioned posts of Collection Amin and only 35% i.e. 35 posts were to be filled up from Seasonal Collection Amin, however, total 57 posts were to be filled up by regularization of Seasonal Collection Amin as thus, there was no post vacant on which the petitioner could have been regularized.

The petitioner, thereafter again filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.3989 (S/S) of 2014 challenging the order dated 3/4.12.2013 passed by District Magistrate, CSM Nagar (now Amethi). This Court vide order dated 15.07.2015, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 3/4.12.2013 passed by District Magistrate, CSM Nagar (now Amethi). The petitioner was permitted to make a representation for age relaxation as per Rule 31 of the Uttar Pradesh Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1974") to the State Government through District Magistrate, CSM Nagar (now Amethi) within a period of three weeks from the date of the order and the State Government was directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and decide the matter within a period of six weeks thereafter. If the State Government would have granted the age relaxation as per Rule 31 of Rules, 1974, the District Magistrate, CSM Nagar (now Amethi) should consider the case of the petitioner for regularization after eight weeks thereafter. The operative portion of the said order dated 15.07.2015 would read as under:-

"Keeping in view the said fact, the reasoning which given by opposite party no.1 while rejecting the petitioner's case for regularization in the impugned order is not tenable and on the basis of the same case of the petitioner for regularization cannot be rejected .

However, as pointed out by Sri Badrul Hasan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that petitioner has completed the age of 45 years now he is nearly 49 years so his case for regularization can be considered by the competent authority if the relaxation towards age is granted by the State Government as per the provisions of Rule 31 of the Rules.

Thus keeping in view the above said fact ,the impugned order dated 3/4.12.2013 passed by opposite party no.3 is set aside and the Petitioner is permitted to make representation for age relaxation as per Rule 31 of the Rules to opposite party no.1 through opposite party no.3/District Magistrate/ Collector, District Amethi within a period of three weeks from today and after receiving the same, opposite party no.1 shall consider and decide the matter within a further period of six weeks. If the age relaxation is granted by State Government as per the provisions of Rule 31 of the Rules than in that circumstances the opposite party no.3/District Magistrate/ Collector, District Amethi shall consider the case of the petitioners for regularization thereafter within a period of eight weeks.

With the above said directions, the writ petition is partly allowed."

The petitioner thereafter, moved a representation for age relaxation on which a report was called. A Three Member Committee was constituted to submit the report on the representation of the petitioner for giving the relaxation in age under Rule 31 of Rules, 1974. The said Committee submitted its report dated 03.09.2015 stating that the petitioner was placed at serial No.37 of the seniority list published on 31.03.2015 and therefore, there was no justification for giving him age relaxation.

Taking into consideration, the said report, the impugned order has been passed wherein it has been said that the petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility conditions as mentioned in Rule 5(A) of the Rules, 1974 and therefore, there was no question of giving him age relaxation and the petitioner's claim/representation got rejected vide order dated 11.01.2016.

The petitioner did not stop and continued to file writ petitions before this Court. The petitioner again filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.12866 (S/S) of 2016 (Writ-A), challenging the said order dated 11.01.2016 passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Uttar Pradesh. The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 20.07.2022 for passing a fresh order to grant age relaxation to the petitioner after considering the finding duly recorded by this Court in order dated 15.07.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.3984 (S/S) of 2014. The respondents were directed to expeditiously pass an order within a period of two months by reasoned and speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner. In compliance of the said order, the impugned order dated 13.10.2022 has been passed.

The petitioner has been fighting this case since 2004. Every time his petitions got allowed and direction was issued to take a decision for regularization of the petitioner, however, the authorities concerned have rejected the claim of the petitioner on one ground or another each time. Finally, vide order dated 20.07.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.12866 (S/S) of 2016 (Writ-A) the respondents were directed to take a decision to relax the age of the petitioner, however, he has not been granted age relaxation on the ground that the petitioner was placed at serial No.37 of the seniority list of Seasonal Collection Amin, therefore, there was no ground to grant the age relaxation. The petitioner's case was to be considered as per the seniority list which was prepared in the year 2004. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the file of the State Government to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization afresh in accordance with seniority list which was prepared in the year 2004 when Shri Hari Shanker Pandey was regularized and if any junior to the petitioner besides Shri Hari Shanker Pandey has been regularized since 2004, the petitioner should also be regularized. The said decision of regularization of the petitioner is to be taken within two months from today.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the present petition is allowed.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)

Order Date :- 11.4.2023

Piyush/-