R. B. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13. 8. 1990 (Annexure- 4) to the writ petition terminating the services of the petitioner. Heard Sri H. S. N. Tripathi, earned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for the respondents. ( 2 ) THE brief Iacts necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the taqabi Amin in the department of Agriculture an the basis of selection on 29. 3. 1971. subsequently his services were retrenched from August, 1975. A notification dated 27. 6. 1978 was also Issued for absorbing the retrenched Taqabi Amins of the department in revenue department. The petitioner continued as seasonal collection amin in tehsil nagaurth, district Siddharth Nagar (old district Basti) but the service of the petitioner was regulated by the Uttar Pradesh Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974. as amended from time to time. On 13. 4. 1990 the service of the petitioner was terminated on the ground that revenue collection was low and he was to make up to the parameter of collection by 15. 8. 1990, on the basis of report of tehsildar dated 13. 8. 1990 (Annexure-4) to the writ petition. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed writ petition and this Court has been pleased to stay the termination order, however, the petitioner was not taken to the job. Subsequently, he has filed writ petition which has been dismissed. Petitioner has contended that the impugned order dated 13. 8. 1990 passed by sub-Divisional Magistrate without holding any inquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in derogation to the provision of Articles 14 and 16 and Article 311 of the Constitution of India, the service of the petitioner being the seasonal collection amin cannot be dismissed in violation of principle of natural justice. ( 3 ) IN Dinesh Kumar Asthana v. Collector, Azamgarh/ Deputy Collector, Tahsti Phulpur, district azamgarh and Ors. . 2001 (1) AWC 785 , it was held in para 8 : "necessary pleadings on this aspect are wanting. Even the counter-affidavit does not disclose that no person in the list prepared in the year 1993 has been regularised whose recovery was below the prescribed limit or that all the persons above such regularised persons were inefficient and/or had poor efficiency on comparison. Even the counter-affidavit does not disclose that no person in the list prepared in the year 1993 has been regularised whose recovery was below the prescribed limit or that all the persons above such regularised persons were inefficient and/or had poor efficiency on comparison. 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 his own efficiency. It is very relevant circumstance while considering 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 ones 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. ( 4 ) FOLLOWING the above decision of Dlnesh Kumar Asthana in Brijesh Kumar v. Collector/district Magistrate. Mainpuri and Ors. , (2001) 3 UPLBBC 2544. It was held in para 3 : "the impugned order does not disclose the period till which he was assigned target of particular collection and the actual period available to him for achieving the said target. Apart from the above, it may be noted that mere non-achieving of target for collection. bereft of other relevant facts cannot be the criterion for achieving efficiency. " ( 5 ) IN State of V. P. v. Chandra Prakash Pandey and Ors. , 2001 (2) AWC 1399 : 2001 (2) ESC 333 (SC), Kurk Amins appointed on commission basis, within the State of U. P. were treated to be employees of the State Government holding civil post within the meaning of Article 311 and were entitled to same srale of pay as payable to Kurk Amins appointed on regular basis by revenue department. It was taken cognizance by Supreme Court in Chandra Prakash Pandey (supra) as below : para 10. The question as to when a person can be said to be holder of a civil post has been subject-matter of consideration before this Court on numerous occasions. In the case of State of assam and Ors. v. Shri Kanak Chandra Dutta, 1967 (1) SCR 679 . The question as to when a person can be said to be holder of a civil post has been subject-matter of consideration before this Court on numerous occasions. In the case of State of assam and Ors. v. Shri Kanak Chandra Dutta, 1967 (1) SCR 679 . a Constitution Bench of this court was considering a case where a mauzador was appointed for collection of land revenue under the mauzadart system prevailing in the Assam Valley whose primary duty was to collect land revenue and other Government revenues. He was working as Revenue Officer and ex officio Assistant Settlement Officer exercising delegated powers of the Government and the state had the power and right to select and appoint him inasmuch as power to suspend and dismiss. The mauzadar was drawing not a regular salary but commission by way of a remuneration. The Court observed that there must be existence of relationship of master and servant between the State and its employees and such a relationship can be established by presence of all or some of the ingredients. After due consideration of the entire matter the Court laid down the law as follows : "judged in this light, a mauzadar in the Assam Valley is the holder of a civil post under the state. The State has the power and the right to select and appoint a mauzadar and the power to suspend and dismiss him. He is a subordinate public servant working under the supervision and control of the Deputy Commissioner. He receives by way of remuneration a commission on his collections and sometimes a salary. There is a relationship of master and servant between the state and him. He holds an office on the revenue side of the administration to which specific and onerous duties in connection with the affairs of the State are attached, an office which falls vacant on the death or removal of the incumbent and which is filled up by successive appointments. He is a responsible officer exercising delegated powers of Government. Mauzadars in the Assam Valley are appointed Revenue Officers and ex-officio Assistant settlement Officers. Originally, a mauzadar may have been a revenue farmer and an independent contractor. But having regard to the existing system of his recruitment. employment and functions, he is a servant and a holder of a civil post under the State. Mauzadars in the Assam Valley are appointed Revenue Officers and ex-officio Assistant settlement Officers. Originally, a mauzadar may have been a revenue farmer and an independent contractor. But having regard to the existing system of his recruitment. employment and functions, he is a servant and a holder of a civil post under the State. Counsel for the State stressed the fact that normally a mauzadar does not draw a salary. But a post outside the regularly constituted services need not necessarily carry "a definite rate of pay". The post of a mauzadar carries with it a remuneration by way of a commission on collections of government dues. Counsel stressed the fact that a mauzadar is not a whole time employee. But a post outside the regularly constituted services may be a part time employment. The conditions of service of a mauzadar enable him to engage in other activities. In Venkata Swamy v. Superintendent of Post Offices. AIR 1957 Ori 112 . the Orissa High Court held, on a consideration of the relevant conditions of employment, that a temporary extra-departmental branch postmaster was not a person holding a civil post, but the observation in that case that a part-time employee cannot be the holder of a civil post outside the regularly constituted services fs too wide and cannot be supported. " Para 11. In the case of Superintendent of Post Offices etc. etc. v. P. K. Rajamma etc. etc. . 1977 (3) SCR 678 . this Court was considering the case whether extra-departmental agent held a civil post and for his dismissal or removal, the provision of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution was applicable. The Court laid down that an extra-departmental agent held a civil post and his dismissal or removal would be Invalid if there was Infraction of provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution as it then stood. The Court observed that extra-departmental agent was not a casual worker but he held a post under the administrative control of the State and the relationship between the postal authorities and the extra-departmental agent was that of a master and servant. Para 12. In the case of State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Roman Lal Keshav Lal Soni and Ors. . 1983 (2) SCC 33 . Para 12. In the case of State of Gujarat and Anr. v. Roman Lal Keshav Lal Soni and Ors. . 1983 (2) SCC 33 . again a Constitution Bench of this Court was considering the question as to whether the Panchayat Service constituted under Section 203 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act was a civil service of the State and the members of the service were Government servants. The Court after due consideration, enumerated the following indiclas for deciding whether a particular person is a member of civil servant of the State and a Government servant in paragraph 27 which runs thus :"we do not propose and indeed it is neither polite nor possible to lay down any definitive test to determine when a person may be said to hold a civil post under the Government. Several factors may indicate the relationship of master and servant. None may be conclusive. On the other hand, no single factor may be considered absolutely essential. The presence of all or some of the factors, such as, the right to select for appointment, the right to appoint, the right to terminate the employment, the right to take other disciplinary action, the right to prescribe the conditions of service, the nature of the duties performed by the employee, the right to control the employees manner and method of the work, the right to issue directions and the right to determine and the source from which wages or salary are paid and a host of such circumstances, may have to be considered to determine the existence of the relationship of master and servant. In each case, it is a question of fact whether a person is servant of the Slate or not. " ( 6 ) UNDISPUTEDLY, the inquiry was conducted and the petitioner was not given proper opportunity of hearing and the above judgments are protecting the cause of the petitioner, therefore, the writ petition is allowed. A separate action may be taken by the authorities against the petitioner in respect of the F. I. R. lodged againsl the petitioner. After submission of certified copy of this order before the respondents, the concerned respondent shall pay the arrears to the petitioner preferably within four months. Since the petitioner has not discharged any work in respect of consequential benefit, only 50% of wages shall be given to the petitioner after reinstatement. After submission of certified copy of this order before the respondents, the concerned respondent shall pay the arrears to the petitioner preferably within four months. Since the petitioner has not discharged any work in respect of consequential benefit, only 50% of wages shall be given to the petitioner after reinstatement. ( 7 ) A certified copy of this order shall be furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges.