Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2701 (ALL)

Pankaj Srivastava v. State of U. P.

2015-09-01

ANIL KUMAR

body2015
JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri K.K. Shukla, learned State counsel and perused the record. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.03.2014 (Annexure No. 1) passed by Collector/District Magistrate, Faizabad thereby rejecting the case of the petitioner for regularization on the post of Collection Amin. 3. Facts in brief of the present case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Seasonal Collection Amin on 01.01.1989 and posted in the said capacity in district Faizabad, thereafer he filed a Writ Petition No. 7580 (SS) of 2009 (Pankaj Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others), disposed of by order dated 04.10.2013 thereby directing the official respondent to consider the case of the petitioner on the post of Collection Amin. 4. Order dated 04.10.2013, challenged by the official respondent by filing a Special Appeal No. 845 of 2010, disposed of by order dated 03.12.2013 with the following direction: - "We make no observation in this regard since it would be open to the Selection Committee, upon remand, to re-consider the entire issue, namely, as to whether the respondent has rendered satisfactory service and fulfilled the requirement of the norms of 70% recovery with reference to the work which was entrusted to him as prescribed in the explanation to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974. The time for consideration of the claim of the respondent for regularization is extended by a further period of three months from today." 5. Thereafter, by order dated 05.03.2014 (Annexure No. 1) passed by Collector/District Magistrate, Faizabad rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that in pursuance to the order dated 03.12.2013 passed by this Court in Special No. 845 of 2010, a Committed has constituted consisting of 4 members in order to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization on the post of Collection Amin and submitted a report dated 07.02.2014. Taking into to the said report as well as the provisions as provided under U.P. Collection Amin Services Rules, 2004, as the collection made by the petitioner in last four fasli years is less than 70%, so he is not entitled for regularization. 6. Taking into to the said report as well as the provisions as provided under U.P. Collection Amin Services Rules, 2004, as the collection made by the petitioner in last four fasli years is less than 70%, so he is not entitled for regularization. 6. 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. 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." 7. 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." 8. 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." 9. 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." 9. Thus keeping in view the above said facts, the impugned order passed by District Magistrate, Faizabd 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. 10. For the forgoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 05.03.2014 (Annexure No. 1) passed by Collector/District Magistrate, Faizabad is set aside and the petitioner is permitted make a fresh representation to opposite party No.3/District Magistrate, Faizabad within a period of two weeks from the date of receiving certified copy of this order for the purpose of regularization of of his case as per Rule 5 of the U.P. Collection Amin Service Rule 2004 read with Rule 31 of the said Rules, thereafter opposite party no.3 shall refer the matter for relaxation of the age to the State Government as per Rule 5 of the U.P. Collection Amin Service Rule 2004 and after relaxation is granted by the State Government, the Opp. party No. 3 shall consider the case of the petitioners regularization. The said exercise shall be done expeditiously, say, within a period of ten weeks thereafter.