Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. ... vs Omkar Nath Gupta on 17 April, 2023
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Om Prakash Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 191 of 2023
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Govt. Of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others
Respondent :- Omkar Nath Gupta
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- Shailesh Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
Heard Shri Indrajeet Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, representing the appellants-State authorities and Shri Ramesh Kumar learned counsel representing the sole respondent.
Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel representing the appellants-State authorities and also taking into account the reasons indicated in the application seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the delay has sufficiently been explained.
Accordingly, the application is allowed and delay in filing the special appeal is hereby condoned.
This special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court assails an order dated 26.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby Writ-A No.579 of 2022 filed by the respondent-petitioner has been allowed and the authorities have been given directions to place all the relevant materials before the Hon'ble Governor (State Government) so that the issue relating to relaxation in age for the purposes of grant of regular appointment to the respondent-petitioner to the post of Seasonal Collection Amin, in terms of the provisions contained in U.P. Public Service (Relaxation of Age Limit) Regulation Rules, 1992 (here-in-after referred to as 'the Rules, 1992') may be considered.
Learned Single Judge has also recorded a finding that recovery of the respondent-petitioner is more than 70% in four fasli years.
Learned State Counsel has submitted that so far as the issue relating to grant of relaxation in age is concerned, the same has to be considered by the State Government in terms of the Rules, 1992 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, however, relaxation in age can be granted only to deserving candidates. His further submission is that it was appropriately pleaded by the State Government before the learned Single Judge that recovery made by the respondent-petitioner was not 70% in four fasli years and as such there is no question of making a proposal to the State Government for consideration of case of the respondent-petitioner for grant of age relaxation for the purposes of giving regular direct appointment to him to the post of Collection Amin.
On the other hand, learned counsel representing the sole respondent-petitioner has submitted that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that recovery effected by the respondent-petitioner as Seasonal Collection Amin was more than 70% in four fasli years is based on records. In this view, the prayer made by the learned counsel representing the respondent-petitioner is that the special appeal deserves to be dismissed at its threshold.
We have considered the respective submissions made by the learned counsel representing the respective parties and have also perused the records available before us.
Learned State Counsel had filed an affidavit duly sworn in by the then District Magistrate, Kheri wherein the factum that the respondent-petitioner had effected recovery of 70% in four fasli years was denied on the basis of seniority list of the Seasonal Collection Amin prepared for the purposes of considering their appointment on regular basis. His submission, thus, is that such seniority list which contains various details including the percentage of recoveries effected by respective Seasonal Collection Amins appears to have lost sight of by the learned Single Judge while recording a finding that the respondent-petitioner had effected the recovery of more than 70%.
Be that as it may, what we find is that if the matter is remitted back before the learned Single Judge, the same may take much time and hence in view of the overall facts, we dispose of this special appeal with the following directions;
(i) the district authorities shall place the entire record of the respondent-petitioner before the State Government for consideration of his case for grant of relaxation in age in terms of the provisions contained in U.P. Public Service (Relaxation of Age Limit) Regulation Rules, 1992 within three weeks from today.
(ii) the State Government shall consider the issue relating to grant of relaxation in age to the respondent-petitioner within three weeks from the date such a proposal is received from the district authorities.
(iii) in case the State Government forms an opinion and grants relaxation in age to the respondent-petitioner for the purposes of his regular appointment to the post of Collection Amin, the appointing authority of the respondent-petitioner shall consider his claim for regular appointment in terms of the U.P. Collection Amin Service Rules, 1974. While doing so, the percentage of recovery shall be calculated on the basis of records which may be available before the district authorities and this consideration regarding percentage of recovery effected by the respondent-petitioner shall be made afresh irrespective of the observations made by the learned Single Judge in his order which is under appeal before us.
(iv) we also direct that in case any such consideration of direct appointment of the respondent-petitioner to the post of Collection Amin is made, the appointing authority shall give two weeks' time to the respondent-petitioner to plead his case as regards percentage of recovery. Such claim shall be considered in accordance with the circular dated 29.09.2000 and any other extant government order/circular, including the judgment rendered by this court dated 04.10.2013 delivered in the case of Pankaj Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and others [Writ Petition No.7580 (S/S) of 2009].
(v) After the State Governments takes a decision for grant of relaxation in age, the appointing authority shall consider the claim of the respondent-petitioner for being given regular appointment to the post of Collection Amin in the light of the observations made herein above and also applying the relevant rules/extant government order/circular etc. within next six weeks.
There will be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 17.4.2023
akhilesh/
