Allahabad High Court
Mohan Lal And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 3 March, 2023
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2180 of 2023
Petitioner :- Mohan Lal And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioners have approached this Court claiming their regularization and age relaxation in terms of the Government order dated 22.02.2019 on the post of Collection Amin, but their case is rejected by the impugned order dated 19.11.2022 and 24.11.2016 on the ground that recovery in the last four fasli years was less than 70% and have become over age.
The said condition has already been quashed by this Court by its judgment and order dated 15.09.2009 passed in Special Appeal No.518 of 2000 (State of U.P. and others Vs. Sri Surendra Singh). The relevant portion of the order dated 15.09.2009 reads as under:
"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."
In the result, the appeal is dismissed with the modifications aforesaid."
A perusal of the same shows that this Court had repeatedly held that non-achieving of target for collection, bereft of other relevant facts cannot be the sole criteria for the purpose of regularization. Since the said aspect of the matter is not considered in the impugned order and the claim of the petitioners is rejected only on the ground that they could not achieve the said 70% recovery. Thus, the impugned order is in violation of the law laid dawn since long.
In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 19.11.2022 and 24.11.2016 are set aside. The respondent no.2-Collector, District Amethi is directed to consider the case of the petitioners for age relaxation as well as for regularization in the light of the fact that other persons other than petitioners have already been granted the said benefit, and pass appropriate reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with, within a period of two months from the date, a certified copy of this order is placed before him, taking into consideration the judgement and order dated 15.9.2009 passed in the case of Surendra Singh (supra).
.
[Vivek Chaudhary J.]
Order Date :- 3.3.2023
-Amit K-
