Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2642 (ALL)

Molhey Ram v. State of U. P.

2013-10-24

ANIL KUMAR

body2013
JUDGMENT Anil Kumar,J.: - Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 2. The petitioner who is working of the post of Seasonal Collection Amin in the Revenue Department, State of U.P. and posted under O.P. No. 3 initially approached this Court with a prayer that his case for regularization on the post of Collection Amin may be considered by filing present writ petition, in which on 21.01.2011, an order has been passed, relevant portion quoted as under: - "In the meantime, the representation of the petitioner dated 22.09.2010, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition, shall be considered and decided in accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order, by the opposite party No. 2." 3. In pursuance to the said direction, the case of the petitioner has been considered and rejected by by means of order dated 23.06.2011 passed by O.P. No. 2 inter alia on the main ground that the petitioner's recovery in the last four fasli years is less than 70%. 4. After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the record, the core question which is to be decided in the present case that whether the case of a person working on the post of Seasonal Collection Amin for regularization can be rejected on the ground that the revenue recovery has been made by him in the last four fasli years is 70% or not. 5. In order to decide the said question, it is necessary to take into consideration Rule 5 of the U.P. Collection Amin Service Rule 2004 (as amended till date), which deals with the regularization of the same of Seasonal Collection Amin is quoted herein below: - "5 Source of Recruitment- Recruitment to the post in the service shall be made from the following sources: (I) fifty percent by direct recruitment through the Selection Committee. (II) Fifty percent posts shall be filled through the Selection Committee from amongst such Seasonal Collection Peons who have worked satisfactorily for at least four fasals and whose age on the first day of July of the year in which selection is made does not exceed 45 years. (II) Fifty percent posts shall be filled through the Selection Committee from amongst such Seasonal Collection Peons who have worked satisfactorily for at least four fasals and whose age on the first day of July of the year in which selection is made does not exceed 45 years. Provided that if suitable candidates are not available , the remaining vacancies shall be fill by direct recruitment under Clause(i) Explanation- Satisfactory work shall mean extending full cooperation in at least seventy percent realization as per prescribed standard fixed by the Government during the last four fasals and good conduct throughout." 6. The said Rules has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court by means of judgment and order dated 15.9.2009 passed in Special Appeal No. 518 of 2000( State of U.P. and others Vs. Sri Surendra Singh ) held 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." 7. 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." 7. In identical circumstances in the matter of peon while taking into consideration the provisions as provided under Rule 5 of Rules 2005 this Court in the case of Ganga Charan Vs. State of U.P. and others , 2008(26) LCD 1542 held as under: - "Thus a plain reading of Rule 5 (supra) indicates that the satisfactory services of a Peon should be judged keeping in view the assistance or cooperation extended by him in the process of recovery of dues. It has not been disputed at bar that the duty of the Collection Peon is to provide assistance and cooperation during the course of recovery of dues to the Collection Amin , who moves alongwith the Collection Peon to recover the dues as the target is fixed by the district authorities or the Government for the Collection Amins . As assisting body , it is always excepted that the Collection Peon shall provide necessary assistance as desired by the Collection Amin while moving in the filed to recover the dues. The satisfactory work on the part of the Collection Peon means the assistance provide by him to the Collection Amin or the other authorities during discharge of duty. In case , the Collection Peon extends full cooperation and assistance during the course of recovery of dues and he possess good conduct throughout then for any deficiency or shortfall in recovery , he or she should not be held responsible." 8. Thus keeping in view the above said facts, the impugned order passed by District Magistrate, Shrawasti 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. 9. For the forgoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.06.2011( Annexure no.1) passed by opposite party no.2/District Magistrate, Shrawasti 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 . 9. For the forgoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.06.2011( Annexure no.1) passed by opposite party no.2/District Magistrate, Shrawasti 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.