Allahabad High Court
Ram Milan Dubey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue ... on 13 February, 2023
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16187 of 2018
Petitioner :- Ram Milan Dubey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Kant Dixit
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was appointed after due selection on the post of Collection Amin. The petitioner was not being regularized therefore he had filed Writ Petition No.784 (S/S) of 2011. The writ petition was allowed holding that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the judgment and order dated 19.08.2006 passed in Writ Petition No.4031 (S/S) of 2001 (Pratap Narain Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Others). In the case of Pratap Narain Pandey (supra) this Court has held that the petitioner shall be treated as regular Collection Amin in service since 05.06.1986 for the purpose of seniority etc. except the salary for the period during which he did not work on the principle of no work no pay. In pursuance of the judgment passed by this Court, the case of the petitioner was considered for regularization. The petitioner was regularized w.e.f 05.06.1986 by means of the order dated 27.7.2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Amethi subject to decision in the Special Appeal Defective No.205 of 2016 (State of U.P. Vs. Ram Milan Dubey and others). The said special appeal was dismissed by means of judgment and order dated 17.9.2019 4. A copy of which has been filed as Annexure No1 to the affidavit in support of the applications for disposal of interim relief dated 12.11.2019 and 8.10.2021.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further invited attention of the Court towards the Annexure No. RA-3 dated 08.04.1986 by which the petitioner was called for interview therefore the contention is that the petitioner was duly selected on the post of Collection Amin and he has been treated as regular collection Amin w.e.f 05.06.1986 but no benefits have been granted to the petitioner. The petitioner has retired on 30.04.2015 after attaining the age of superannuation. The writ petition is liable to be allowed and the petitioner is entitled for all service and retiral benefits after considering his services w.e.f 05.06.1986, the date from which this Hon'ble Court has directed that the petitioner shall be treated as regular Collection Amin for the purposes of seniority etc.
Shri Vivek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner had participated in the selection process in the year 1986 but he was not selected. He was engaged as Seasonal Collection Amin and accordingly he was permitted to work as and when the work was available. He further submitted that the petitioner has worked as permanent Collection Amin only w.e.f. 27.7.2012 to 30.04.2015 and has worked only for a period of two years, nine months and three days. He further submitted that since the petitioner has not completed ten years of regular service therefore he is not entitled for pension etc. in view of the provision made in Civil Service Regulation.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The petitioner was granted the benefit of judgment and order dated 19.08.2006 passed in Writ Petition No.4031 (S/S) of 2001 (Pratap Narain Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Others) by means of order dated 06.09.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.748 (S/S) of 2011 filed by the petitioner. By the judgment and order dated 19.08.2006 this Court had allowed the writ petition filed by Pratap Narain Pandey holding that he shall be treated as regular Collection Amin since 05.06.1986 for the purpose of seniority etc. except salary for the period during which he did not work on the principle of no work no pay. In compliance thereof the services of the petitioner were regularized by means of the order dated 27.07.2012 w.e.f 05.06.1986 however the said order was passed subject to final order to be passed in Special Appeal Defective No.205 of 2016. The said special appeal has been dismissed by this Court by means of judgment and order dated 17.9.2019. Therefore the petitioner is entitled for all service and retiral benefits on the basis of regularization w.e.f 05.06.1986. Accordingly the contention of learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit, is misconceived and is rejected as the same is against the judgment (supra) passed by this Court.
So far as the submission of learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that the petitioner could not be selected in regular selection in 1986 is concerned, the same is immaterial because he has been treated regular Collection Amin w.e.f. 05.06.1986 by this Court and the respondents have also passed an order to this effect on 27.07.2012.
Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed.
The respondents are directed to consider and provide all service benefits and retiral dues as claimed and permissible as per law to the petitioner treating him to be in regular service w.e.f 05.06.1986 in terms of the order passed by this court in Writ Petition No.784 (SS) of 2011within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 13.2.2023
Rajneesh JR-PS)
