JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ajit Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner who was working as Seasonal Collection Amin at Tehsil Dadari District Gautam Budh Nagar was initially appointed on 3rd January, 1981 as a Seasonal Collection Amin. On account of death of regular Collection Amin, Rajendra Pathak, vacancy fell substantively vacant and accordingly petitioner was given substantive appointment by the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate on 31st July, 1989. A select list of the candidates of the Seasonal Collection Amin prepared for the purpose of giving substantive appointment against 35 per cent quota reserved for appointment from Seasonal Collection Amin to Regular Collection Amin and name of the petitioner figures at 18 of the select list which has been appended as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Pursuant to the appointment, petitioner joined his services as Collection Amin. While petitioner was discharging his duties, another order was issued from office of the Collector/District Ghaziabad under the signatures of the Incharge Officer (Collection), Ghaziabad, in which proposal was mooted that one Jai Prakash who was working as temporary Collection Amin and was there in the select list at serial No. 42 was to be transferred and posted against the post of Collection Amin due to death of Rajendra Pathak on which petitioner was already working under the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 31st July, 1989. The order dated 31st July, 1989 whereby the petitioner was given substantive appointment, was recommended to be cancelled. The operative portion of the recommendation dated 8the September, 1989 issued from office of the Collector/District Magistrate, Ghaziabad is reproduced hereunder: ^^Jh t;izdk'k vLFkkbZ laxzg vehu rglhy gkiqM+ p;fur lwph ds vH;FkhZ gS dk LFkkukUrj.k Jh jktsUnz ikBd laxzg vehu rglhy nknjh ds vkl ikl Hkh vkus dkj.k gqbZ fjfDr esa rglhy nknjh esa fd;k tkrk gSA Jh jktsUnz ikBd ds fjDr LFkku ij vkids vkns'k fnukad 31&7&89 ds }kjk Jh ckcw jke 'kekZ dh rnFkZ vLFkkbZ :i ls dh xbZ fu;qfDr rqjUr lekIr dj nh tk;sA ;g vkns'k rRdkyizHkko ls ykxw gksaxsA^^ 3. From perusal of the aforesaid order, it transpires that some recommendation was made from the office of District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar and that was to be acted upon by the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned being appointing authority but in the meanwhile before any consequential action could have been taken, the petitioner challenged the said order vide writ petition No. 17198 of 1989 and this Court had pleased to stay the order dated 7th November, 1989 in following terms: “Standing counsel is granted a months time to file a counter-affidavit. List this petition on 07th November, 1989. Meanwhile the services of the petitioner as Collection Amin shall not be dispensed with. Sd/V.N.K. Sd/ K.K.B. 20.9.89” 4. It appears that as consequence to the above order, no further action was taken at the end of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and petitioner continued to work on the post of Collection Amin in substantive capacity. The aforesaid writ petition however came to be dismissed finally on 5.8.1997 on the ground that petitioner was though given substantive appointment but only on temporary basis and since Jai Prakash belonged to scheduled caste, he was offered appointment in preference to the petitioner and the petitioner having not acquired any lien on the post in question and having worked only on the strength of interim order of the Court, said period cannot be reckoned with for the purposes of regularZation. Writ petition was dismissed and the interim order was vacated on 5.8.1997. Relevant portion of the order of this Court dated 5th August, 1997 is reproduced hereunder: “From the material available on record, it is clear that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Collection Amin purely on ad hoc basis and his services were liable to be terminated at any time without notice. The order of appointment made in favour of the petitioner, therefore, does not confer any legal right upon him to continue in service. Since Schedule Caste Candidate has been appointed in preference to the petitioner after dispensing with the services of the petitioner, the question of discrimination does not arise. Continuance of petitioner in service in pursuance of interim order passed on 20.9.89 does not entitle him to get the benefit of regularZation in service. Since Schedule Caste Candidate has been appointed in preference to the petitioner after dispensing with the services of the petitioner, the question of discrimination does not arise. Continuance of petitioner in service in pursuance of interim order passed on 20.9.89 does not entitle him to get the benefit of regularZation in service. In Committee of Management, Arya Nagar Inter College, Kanpur v. Sri Kumar Tewari (JT 1997 (4) SC 572, the Apex Court has taken the view that services rendered under the stay order passed by High Court cannot be reckoned for the purpose of regularZation. It is not a fit case for interference in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, as the petitioner has no legal right to hold the post of Collection Amin. The writ petition is dismissed. Stay order dated 20.9.89 is vacated.” 5. In respect of aforesaid order, petitioner filed a review application as according to him order was passed in the absence of his counsel and therefore, no opportunity of hearing was given to him before passing of final order by this Court, however, the Court rejected the argument and ground taken in review application on the ground that very opening of the order dated 5.8.1997 records “with the consent of both the parties, petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage.” 6. This review application was rejected on 12.11.1999. The petitioner preferred special appeal against the aforesaid order bearing Special Appeal No. 1435 of 2009 in which while division bench did not find any fault with the findings returned by learned Single Judge yet directed that in the event work and conduct of the petitioner was found to be good and there were vacancies then regularZation/appointment of the applicant may be considered by the concerned respondents. The relevant portion of the order division bench dated 18th July, 2012 is reproduced hereunder: “6. There is nothing to show that finding of the single Judge is incorrect. In view of the same the judgment cannot be faulted. 7. Counsel for the appellant next submits that In pursuance of the interim order granted by single Judge the appellant had continued to work till 2008; He has been regularised; and He should not be removed from service after serving for about 19 years. 8. In view of the same the judgment cannot be faulted. 7. Counsel for the appellant next submits that In pursuance of the interim order granted by single Judge the appellant had continued to work till 2008; He has been regularised; and He should not be removed from service after serving for about 19 years. 8. It is not necessary to consider these submissions as they should be first consider by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad (respondent No. 2). Considering these circumstances, it is appropriate to dispose of the appeal with the observation that if the work and conduct is good and there are vacancies, then the respondents may consider in regularising/appointing of the appellant, in accordance with law. 9. In this regard, the appellant may file an application before respondent No. 2 within one month. In case the application is filed, it may be decided by respondent No. 2 by a speaking order, if possible, within three months from the date of receipt of the application. The appellants will file a certified copy of this order, other necessary documents and a duly stamped self-addressed envelope alongwith the application. The respondent No. 2 after taking decision will communicate the same to the appellants. 10. We would also like to clarify that irrespective of the order in the application salary/emoluments paid to the appellant for work done in pursuance of the interim order of this Court will not be recovered from him. 11. With the aforesaid directions, the Special Appeal is disposed of.” 7. In the meanwhile it is worth noticing that services of petitioner as Collection Amin were terminated on 23rd January, 2008 on the ground that writ petition of the petitioner had already been dismissed on 5th August, 1997 and the said order was concealed by him. 11. With the aforesaid directions, the Special Appeal is disposed of.” 7. In the meanwhile it is worth noticing that services of petitioner as Collection Amin were terminated on 23rd January, 2008 on the ground that writ petition of the petitioner had already been dismissed on 5th August, 1997 and the said order was concealed by him. Order dated 23rd January, 2008 by which services of petitioner as Collection Amin were terminated is also reproduced hereunder: ^^ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn esa vkids }kjk ;ksftr flfoy felysfu;l fjV ;kfpdk 17198@1999 ckcw jke 'kekZ iq= [kpsMw 'kekZ fu0& xzke fojkSaMh pdlsuiqj cuke mŸkjizns’k ljdkj ,oa vU; esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad&05&08&1997 esa vkidks iznRr LFkxukns'k fujLr djrs gq, vkidk ljdkjh lsok dk Dyse lekIr fd;k x;k FkkA fdUrq vkids }kjk mDr vkns'k dks Nqikdj xyr rjhdksa ls ljdkjh ukSdjh djrs jgs ,oa leLr ykHk izkIr djrs jgsA vr% ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 05&08&1997 ds Øe esa ftykf/kdkjh xkSrecq)uxj egksn; ds vkns'k fnukad&03&12&2007 ds vuqikyu esa fnukad 05&08&1997 ls vkidh lsok,a lekIr ekurs gq, vkidks rRdky lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k tkrk gS ,oa vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vki viuk leLr dk;ZHkkj rglhynkj nknjh }kjk ukfer laxzg vehu dks lkSai nsA miftykf/kdkjh nknjh (English Translation by Court) “Under the orders passed by the High Court, Allahabad dated 5.8.1997 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17198 of 1999, Babu Ram Sharma S/o Khacheru Sharma, Village Viraundi, Chaksenpur v. State of U.P. and others, interim order given to him was cancelled and his claim of Government service was rejected. But you continued to work as a Government servant concealing the above orders and obtained benefits thereof. Accordingly, in compliance of the order of the High Court, Allahabad dated 5.8.1997 and orders of the District Magistrate, Gautambudh Nagar dated 3.12.2007, his services are being treated as terminated with w.e.f. 5.8.1997 and you are directed to handover your entire charge to the collection amin nominated by Tehsildar, Dadari. SDM Dadari” 8. Pursuant to the direction of Division Bench dated 18th July, 2012 in special appeal (supra), the District Magistrate called for a report from the Additional District Magistrate about claim of the petitioner and possible action that can be taken in the matter with regard to his claim for regularZation. SDM Dadari” 8. Pursuant to the direction of Division Bench dated 18th July, 2012 in special appeal (supra), the District Magistrate called for a report from the Additional District Magistrate about claim of the petitioner and possible action that can be taken in the matter with regard to his claim for regularZation. The report was submitted on 21st August, 2012 in which it was clearly stated that petitioner had worked as Collection Amin from 1981 till 1989 and thereafter he worked from 1989 to 2007 as a Collection Amin. It also records that the junior persons to the petitioner almost 5 in numbers have already been regularZed as Collection Amin in service. However, in recommendation part of the report it records that in case petitioner is given promotion in compliance of the order of the Court dated 18th January, 2012 considering his age he could be offered benefit of service only w.e.f the date of regularZation/substantive appointment and that would be only 6 years and 6 months. However, in recommendation part of the report it records that in case petitioner is given promotion in compliance of the order of the Court dated 18th January, 2012 considering his age he could be offered benefit of service only w.e.f the date of regularZation/substantive appointment and that would be only 6 years and 6 months. The recommendation as made by the Additional District Magistrate forwarded to the Collector dated 21st August, 2012 is reproduced hereunder: ^^ek0 mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn ds vkns'k fnukad 18&07&2012 ds vuqikyu esa izkFkhZ Jh ckcw jke 'kekZ }kjk izLrqr izR;kosnu fnukad& 26&07&2012 ds lEcUèk esa voxr djkuk gS fd Jh ckcw jke 'kekZ mijksDr dks rRdkyhu ftykf/kdkjh ds vkns'k fnukad 03&12&2007 ds Øe esa miftykf/kdkjh nknjh }kjk fnukad 23&01&2008 dks lsok ls bl vkjksi esa i`Fkd fd;k x;k fd buds }kjk ;ksftr fjV ;kfpdk la0 17198@1989 esa vfUre ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 05&08&1997 ds lEcUèk esa dk;kZy; dks voxr ugha djk;k x;kA buds }kjk mDr vof/k esa dh x;h olwyh ¼dk;Z½ vFkok buds pfj= ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ mYys[k ugha fd;k x;k] D;ksafd bl lEcU/k esa rglhy nknjh ls dksbZ vk[;k izkIr ugha gqbZ Fkh] ftlls Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ Jh ckcw jke 'kekZ dk dk;Z o pfj= larks"ktud jgk gksxkAizkFkhZ dh dh tUefrfFk 07&01&1959 gS rFkk buds }kjk o"kZ 1981 ls o"kZ 1989 rd lhtuy laxzg vehu ds in ij o ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 20&09&1989 ds vuqikyu esa o"kZ 2007 rd dk;Z fd;k gSA buls dgha twfu;j fuEu lhtuy laxzg vehu vc rd tuin esa fofu;fer gks pqds gSa] vkSj fu;fer lsok dj jgs gSa] tSls& 01& erk flag 02& vfuy dqekj 'kekZ 03& jkts'oj n;ky 04&vkseizdk'k 'kekZ 05&uohu dqekj 'kekZ vkfnA ;fn bUgsa vkns'k ds Øe esa fu;fer fd;k tkrk gS rks 6 o"kZ 6 ekg fu;fer lsok dk gh ykHk feysxkA vc rd mlds }kjk tks dk;Z lhtuy vehu@ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k gS] mlds lEcU/k esa dksbZ izfrdwy rF; ugha gS] blfy, izkFkhZ ds izfr ekuoh; n`f"Vdks.k viukrs gq, ,oa mudh vR;kf/kd mez dks ns[krs gq, ek0 mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn ds vkns'k fnukad 18&07&2012 ds dze esa izkFkhZ mijksDr dks laxzg vehu ds in ij vkns'k fuxZr gksus dh fnukad ls fu;fer fd;s tkus ij fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gSA bl le; 8 laxzg vehuksa ds in fjDr gSaA izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr izR;kosnu fnukad 26&07&2012 dk fuLrkj.k fd;s tkus gsrq egksn; ;fn lger gks rks Jh ckcw jke 'kekZ mijksDr dks mDr frfFk esa laxzg vehu ds in ij vkns'k fuxZr gksus dh fnukad ls fu;fer fu;qDr djus gsrq fopkj djuk pkgsaA budh fu;qfDr iw.kZr% vLFkk;h gksxh] rFkk fdlh Hkh le; fcuk iwoZ lwpuk ds lekIr dh tk ldsxhA rn~uqlkj izR;kosnu fuLrkj.k dk vkys[k rS;kj dj lEeq[k izLrqr fd;k tk ldsxk] ;fn egksn; lger gksa rks lgefr dh n'kk esa gLrk{kj djuk pkgsaA^^ (English Translation by Court) “Considering the representation of Sri Babu Ram Sharma dated 26.7.2012 in compliance of the order of the High Court, Allahabad dated 18.7.2012, it is hereby apprised that services of Sri Babu Ram Sharma were terminated vide order dated 23.1.2008 in pursuance to the then District Magistrate dated 3.12.2007 on the charge that Sri Sharma had not informed about the final order of the High Court dated 5.8.1997 passed in Writ Petition No. 17198 of 1989. He has not mentioned about any recovery work during that period and no description has been made regarding his character during that period as no further report has been received from the Tehsildar Dadari in respect thereof by which it could be discerned that his work and conduct was satisfactory during that period. The date of birth of the applicant is 7.1.1959 and that he has worked from 1981 till 1989 as Seasonal Collection Amin and then under the Orders of the High Court dated 20th September, 1989 till 2007. Much junior to him are following Seasonal Collection Amin who have been regularZed in tehsil and are regularly working, such as- 01- Mata Singh 02- Anil Kumar Sharma 03- Rajeshwar Dayal 04- Om Prakash Sharma 05- Navin Kumar Sharm etc. In case he is regularied in compliance of the order of the Court, he will be given benefit of 6 years and 6 months service. Whatever work he has discharged till date, he has discharged only under orders of the Court and there is nothing adverse about him and accordingly taking humanitarian approach in the matter and considering his advance age his regularZation/regular appointment can be considered under the orders of the High Court dated 18.7.2012 only w.e.f. Issuance of the said order. There are 8 vacancies of collection amins vacant at present. In case if you are agreed with recommendation in respect of the claim of Sri Babu Ram Sharma under the representation dated 26.7.2012 then his regular appointment can be considered from the date of issuance of the order. His appointment shall be purely temporary and can be tgerminated without any prior notice. If agreed to the above recommendation the same may be approved.” 9. Ultimately on the basis of aforesaid recommendation, District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar proceeded to give regular appointment to the petitioner as per recommendation made in the report dated 21st August, 2012 and accordingly the petitioner stands regularZed/absorbed as Collection Amin in a substantive capacity only w.e.f 10.10.2012. The consequential order has been passed on 17.10.2012 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Ultimately on the basis of aforesaid recommendation, District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar proceeded to give regular appointment to the petitioner as per recommendation made in the report dated 21st August, 2012 and accordingly the petitioner stands regularZed/absorbed as Collection Amin in a substantive capacity only w.e.f 10.10.2012. The consequential order has been passed on 17.10.2012 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The substantive part of the order by which proposal has been approved by the Collector and that has resulted in giving substantive position to the petitioner is reproduced hereunder: ^^ftyk 'kkldh; vf/koDrk ¼flfoy½ dh fof/kd jk; fnukad 01&10&2012 ,oa ofj"V dks"kkf/kdkjh dh vk[;k fnukad 8&10&2012 dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, vij ftykf/kdkjh ¼fo0@jk0½ }kjk izLrqr izLrko fnukad 21&08&2012 ;FkkZLrkfor vuqeksfnrA d`i;k fu/kkZfjr 'kklukns'k@fu;eksa dk dM+kbZ ls vuqikyu lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;sA ¼,e0ds0,l0 lqUnje½ ftykf/kdkjh] XkkSrecq} uxjA^^ (English Translation by Court) “In view of remarks of District Government Counsel (Civil) dated 1.10.2012 and report of the Senior Treasurer Officer dated 8.10.2012 the recommendation made by SDM, dated 21.8.2012 is hereby by approved. Strict compliance of the statutory Government Order/Rules should be ensured. (M.K.S. Sundaram) District Magistrate Gautambudh Nagar” 10. The petitioner has also brought on record service book which also carries entries of the petitioner as Collection Amin in the past prior to his termination in 2008. Having perused the entire records referred to hereinabove, three points clearly emerge in this case for consideration of this Court: a. whether petitioner was ever offered appointment as Collection Amin in a substantive capacity against substantive vacancy; b. whether on account of order dated 8.9.1989 by which services of petitioner as Collection Amin came to be annulled and in his place Jai Prakash was given appointment, will amount to closing all opportunities of the petitioner for future recommendation. c. Whether the order dated 8.9.1989 was ever given effect to and that petitioner continued only on the strength of interim order on the post of Collection Amin, and therefore, as a consequence to the order dated 23rd January, 2008, his service came to be terminated and he ceased to member of service even in capacity of Seasonal collection Amin. d. Whether it is open for the petitioner to challenge the order dated 23.1.2008 and if not its effect. 11. d. Whether it is open for the petitioner to challenge the order dated 23.1.2008 and if not its effect. 11. Considering the first point with regard to position of petitioner having acquired the post of Collection Amin in the year 1989 under the order dated 1st July, 1989, I find that petitioner’s name figured in the select list at serial No. 18. That select list was prepared for the purpose of appointment in a substantive capacity as a Collection Amin in the department. It is bobody’s case that Rajendra Pathak was in any manner holding a temporary position. Rajendra Pathak admittedly was holding a post of regular Collection Amin and it is on account of his death the post had fallen vacant and petitioner being senior to one Jai Prakash in the select list was offered appointment against vacancy of Rajender Pathak under the order dated 31st July, 1989. It appears that later on a department realZed that Jai Prakash was scheduled caste person and, therefore, applying rules of reservation he was to be offered appointment in preference to the petitioner and accordingly recommendation was made on 8.9.1989 by the Collector to give appointment to Jai Prakash and consequently, order dated 31st July, 1989 issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate was to be annulled. 12. I, therefore, find that as far as petitioner’s appointment against substantive vacancy of Rajendra Pathak on 31st July, 1989 is concerned, the same is not at all disputed and, therefore, there cannot be any quarrel about that and therefore with regard to first point I hold that petitioner was offered appointment on substantive capacity though on temporary basis on 31st July, 1989. 13. So far as order dated 8.9.1989 is concerned, the order has been issued from the office of the Collector Ghaziabd and definitely aimed at directing Sub Divisional Magistrate for necessary action. There is nothing brought on record by the respondent that this order was at any point of time acted upon. The order clearly demonstrates that order was to be acted upon by the competent authority however, in the meanwhile interim order of the Court dated 21.9.1989 passed in writ petition No. 17189 of 1989 in favour of petitioner and it appears that no further action was taken and the petitioner was continued in substantive capacity as Collection Amin. The order clearly demonstrates that order was to be acted upon by the competent authority however, in the meanwhile interim order of the Court dated 21.9.1989 passed in writ petition No. 17189 of 1989 in favour of petitioner and it appears that no further action was taken and the petitioner was continued in substantive capacity as Collection Amin. It is true that ultimately the said writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court vide writ petition No. 518 of 1997 and from perusal of the operative portion of the order, it is clear that Court clearly upheld the appointment of Jai Prakash against vacancy of Rajendra Pathak on which the petitioner had been appointed. I, am therefore, of the view as far as appointment of the petitioner against vacancy of Rajendra Pathak is concerned, the claim had come to be settled finally by order dated 5.8.1997 passed in the writ petition No. 17198 of 1989 and same cannot be reopened. The question of consideration of the petitioner’s claim against vacancy on which he was given substantive appointment in the year 1989 came to an end and cannot be re-agitated. Review application filed by the petitioner in special appeal having been dismissed and the order of learned Single Judge having got confirmed in special appeal, I am also of this view that if termination order dated 23rd January, 2008 is passed, it is only a consequential action to the dismissal of the writ petition and it cannot be said that in any manner the order suffers from any manifest error of fact or law in so far as his regular appointment as Collection Amean on ad hoc basis is concerned. 14. The writ petition itself was directed against his removal from substantive post to accommodate a scheduled caste candidate by way of preference and so if writ petition was dismissed, it was dismissed to that extent only. Any ad hoc appointment on regular basis done from the feeding cadre, if cancelled, does not mean that he is removed from Government service absolutely loosing his position also in the feeding cadre. 15. I further find that order dated 8.9.1989 was passed in the manner that amounted to review of ad-hoc appointment of petitioner on a substantive post and so he got reverted to his original post of Season Collection Amin. 15. I further find that order dated 8.9.1989 was passed in the manner that amounted to review of ad-hoc appointment of petitioner on a substantive post and so he got reverted to his original post of Season Collection Amin. This order has came to be enforced only vide order dated 22nd January, 2008. This is also corroborated from the fact that after Division bench had directed the department to reconsider the matter of regularZation and also not to recover any emoluments or salary already paid to him while he worked during period 1989 to 2008. Thus the Court also acknowledged de facto continuance of the petitioner as Collection Amean and to that extent the order of learned Single Judge stood modified. So the termination of petitioner by order dated 23rd January, 2008 only resulted in his position back as Seasonal Collection Amean and restored his position also in the original select list. If the respondents did not take work from him, it is their fault and for which petitioner cannot be made to suffer. The fact is that there has never been any termination or disengagement of the petitioner from Seasonal Collection Amean position and he was never de-listed from the select list originally prepared in respect of Seasonal Collection Amean and it is from this list that five persons junior to the petitioner were given substantive appointment while the petitioner was working as Regular Collection Amin and so his case was not considered. 16. Now it is worth considering that very report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 21st August, 2012 clearly demonstrates that petitioner had worked from 1989 to 2007 and all that is disputed is that he worked on the strength of interim order of the High Court. This report cannot be treated to be absolutely correct in the light of the fact that recommendation dated 31st July, 1989 was never acted upon by any further order by the competent authority nor, any order has been brought on record by the respondent that order was passed to continue him till disposal of the writ petition and this is the reason why the Division Bench it appeals acknowledged his de facto working as Collection Amin and protected his interest by directing for consideration of his case for substantive appointment. In a sense he was treated as to have continued as such and on the select list as well. In a sense he was treated as to have continued as such and on the select list as well. 17. In view of above, the Court fails to understand as to under what circumstances, respondent did not find that petitioner to be entitled to continue as Seasonal Collection Amin from 23rd January, 2008. The question of regularZation/substantive appointment taken for consideration under the Rules is only dependent upon working as Seasonal Collection Amin and the results of collection he had shown in the last four faslis. This being the legal position of regularZation or offering regular substantive appointment, he could have been considered only on the ground that petitioner’s working in past, meaning thereby respondents have thus admitted that petitioner continued as Seasonal Collection Amin for all these years and with his position entact in the select list, though, he was not allotted work for the reason best known to the respondents. Thus petitioner shall be treated to have continued as Seasonal Collection Amin even after the order was passed on 23rd January, 2008. Suffice it to say that services of the petitioner from 1989 till date of regularZation have to be reckoned with for the purpose of regularZation/regular substantive appointment and other notional benefits as consequence to the regularZation/regular appointment. Since petitioner services being regularZed it is clearly established that past service of petitioner have been taken into account as it is quite obvious that, the period during which he was not given collection work, was being condoned. 18. In view of the above I hold the petitioner to be entitled to regular substantive appointment w.e.f his juniors were appointed as such and whose names figure in the report dated 21st August, 2012 (supra). 19. Writ petition is, accordingly allowed with a direction to the District Magistrate to pass appropriate order in the light of the observations made hereinabove positively within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.