Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3089 (ALL)

Dhananjay Kumar Srivastava v. State of U. P.

2016-09-08

RAJAN ROY

body2016
JUDGMENT Rajan Roy, J. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner in Review Petition No. 521 of 2015 is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. All the above petitions involve similar facts and issues, therefore, they all are being heard and decided by a common order. 4. The petitioner herein had earlier filed a writ petition bearing No. 6545(S/S) of 2015 which was decided vide judgment dated 16.11.2015, the relevant extracts of the said judgment are quoted herein below: - "Considering this aspect of the matter ends of justice would be met if the opposite parties are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid facts and if it is found that services of any person junior to the petitioner based on the approved final seniority list of Seasonable Collection Amins prepared in accordance with rules has been regularized then the petitioner shall be entitled to be considered and regularized on the post of Regular Seasonable Collection Amin depending upon availability of vacancies belonging to the unreserved category, from the date juniors to him have been regularized. Subject to the above, this Court declines to interfere with the impugned order so far as the cancellation of regularization of the petitioner vide order dated 06.11.2003 is concerned, however, with the condition that the salary and emoluments already paid to the petitioner shall not be recovered. It shall be open to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation regarding his claim for regularization as aforesaid and pleas raised therein shall be specifically considered by the competent authority while considering the case of the petitioner for regularization as aforesaid and a reasoned and speaking order shall be passed. Such consideration shall be done unaffected by the impugned order and non interference with the same by this Court. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. If any person junior to the petitioner based on the approved final seniority list is working on the post of Regular Seasonal Collection Amin and his services have been regularized then the petitioner shall be allowed to continue on such post till such consideration as directed herein above. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of." 5. If any person junior to the petitioner based on the approved final seniority list is working on the post of Regular Seasonal Collection Amin and his services have been regularized then the petitioner shall be allowed to continue on such post till such consideration as directed herein above. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of." 5. This Court for the reasons mentioned in the aforesaid judgment did not interfere with the order of cancellation of regularization of services of the petitioner on the post of Amin, but, for the reasons mentioned therein the opposite parties were directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the facts mentioned therein, if it was found, that services of any person junior to the petitioner based on the approved final seniority list of Seasonal Collection Amin prepared in accordance with rules have been regularized and also in such an eventuality the petitioner shall be entitled to be considered and regularized on the post of Regular Collection Amin (wrongly referred as Regular Seasonable Collection Amin) depending upon availability of vacancies belonging to the unreserved category from the date his juniors were regularized. Further more this Court had provided that if any person junior to him based on approved final seniority list is working on the post of Regular Collection Amin (wrongly referred as Regular Seasonable Collection Amin) and his services have been regularized then the petitioner shall be allowed to continue on such post till such consideration as has been directed in the said judgment. In compliance thereof the Collector has passed an order on 20.02.2016 rejecting the claim of the petitioner which has been put to challenge in this writ petition. 6. In compliance thereof the Collector has passed an order on 20.02.2016 rejecting the claim of the petitioner which has been put to challenge in this writ petition. 6. A perusal of the said order reveals firstly that the Collector has reemphasized the legality of his action in cancelling the petitioner's regularization which was quite unnecessary as this Court has uphold the same in the earlier writ petition, thereafter the Collector has admitted that there are 13 persons junior to the petitioner whose services have been regularized and whose name figured in the list dated 19.08.2006 which was an approved in final list but has declined to give parity on the ground that the services of 13 persons were regularized on the basis of Selection Committee ignoring observations and directions of this Court in the earlier judgment which in such an eventuality required him to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for regularization with effect from the date juniors to him had been regularized. The factum of services of 13 juniors having been regularized on the basis of recommendations of a Selection Committee having been admitted in the order dated 20.02.2016 it was incumbent upon the Collector to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization subject to availability of vacancies belonging to the unreserved category. The order of the Collector does not say that these 13 persons were regularized against reserved posts nor that no unreserved vacancies are available for such consideration. In fact as would be evident from the earlier judgment, the order of cancellation of his regularization had been stayed by this Court on 12.01.2004, therefore, he continued to work on the regular post of Collection Amin till the passing of the judgment dated 16.11.2015 and it is nobody case that the said regular vacancy has been filled up thereafter, therefore, the vacancy is also very much available and there is nothing in the counter affidavit to indicate the contrary, therefore, the same is available even as on date. The Court is constrained to observe that the Collector has not applied his mind appropriately to the facts of the case in the light of the observations/ directions issued by this Court in the earlier judgment dated 16.11.2015 and has unnecessary compelled the petitioner to approach this Court again. The Court is constrained to observe that the Collector has not applied his mind appropriately to the facts of the case in the light of the observations/ directions issued by this Court in the earlier judgment dated 16.11.2015 and has unnecessary compelled the petitioner to approach this Court again. Further more the Court finds that in the order dated 20.02.2016 it is also admitted that one person junior to the petitioner, namely, Yamuna Prasad Gupta is continuing on the regular post of Collection Amin in view of the interim order dated 26.09.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 2189(S/S) of 1994. 7. In view of the aforesaid admitted facts and the factual scenario which has presented before the Court as aforesaid, the Court is of the considered opinion that the reconsideration by the Collector is absolutely unjustified and unsustainable. In the facts of the case the petitioner is entitled to be reconsidered for regularization of his services on the post of Regular Collection Amin in the light of the judgment dated 16.11.2015 against the vacancy referred hereinabove, keeping in the mind the observations made in this judgment. Any further deviation or transgression of the order of this Court will invite severe penal against the concerned official. Considering the facts of the case as juniors are working as Regular Collection Amin, petitioner shall be immediately assigned the work of Regular Collection Amin till the consideration of his regularization as aforesaid. 8. It is also necessary to point out that the Court had also observed that the reconsideration shall not be adversely affected in any manner by the order of the Collector which was being upheld, then the reconsideration was to be based on a fresh selection. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 20.02.2016 is hereby quashed. The collector shall proceed to reconsider the matter as aforesaid, say, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted. 10. Considering the unnecessary harassment caused to the petitioner which obviously entailed incurring of expenditure for litigating his rights a cost of Rs. 25,000/- is imposed upon the opposite parties which shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted. 10. Considering the unnecessary harassment caused to the petitioner which obviously entailed incurring of expenditure for litigating his rights a cost of Rs. 25,000/- is imposed upon the opposite parties which shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted. It shall be open for the State Government to recover the said amount from the officials concerned who are responsible for passing the impugned order. 11. The writ petition is allowed. 12. As far as the review petition is concerned, the reference made therein to the words 'Regular Seasonal Collection Amin', as and where appearing, shall be read and understood as a reference to the words 'Regular Collection Amin.' In view of the above discussion and clarification the judgment dated 16.11.2015 is not required to be reviewed. 13. The review petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.