Remanded

Arun Kumar Singh and 14 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2018WRIA/61486/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the District Magistrate, Ghazipur, to consider the petitioners' claim for regular appointment as Collection Peons under Rule 5(ii) of the amended 2016 Service Rules, within four months, holding that their service must be examined on merits regardless of earlier dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Direction upon the Third Respondent to accord consideration to the petitioners' claim under Rule 5(ii) within four months.

Arun Kumar Singh and 14 Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 58

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 61486 of 2017

¶3

Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Singh And 14 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shantanu Khare,Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

This petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondent no. 3, i.e., District Magistrate, Ghazipur, to grant appointment or to absorb the services of the petitioners against the post of Collection Peon in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Collection Peon Service Rules, 2004 as amended vide U.P. Collection Peon (Second Amendment) Service Rules, 2016.

¶6

Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to notice that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30486 of 1995 ( Dudh Nath Singh and 22 Others Vs. Collectorate, Gazipur and Others ), which was dismissed. A Special Appeal No. 996 of 2012 was preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge, which, in turn, was dismissed in terms of the order dated 16.05.2017 passed in Special Appeal No. 968 of 2012 ( Ram Ratan Yadav Vs. The Collector and Others ), which reads as under:

¶7

"We are in respectful agreement with the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge. We may only record that the Writ Court will not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside an illegal order which may result in restoration of another illegal order.

¶8

The Writ Court are not meant for perpetuating illegality.

¶9

The appeal is dismissed.

¶10

This order shall not affect the rights of the petitioner, if he has any, to be considered for regular appointment under the U.P. Collection Peons Services Rules, 2004.

¶11

The appellant is at liberty to seek his remedy therein. "

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had worked for more than 4 fasals from 1991 to 1995 and their claim for being offered regular appointment in terms of the amended Rules of 2016 is liable to be examined in accordance with law, notwithstanding the dismissal of the earlier writ petition and special appeal. It is also contended that the respondents have rejected the petitioners' claim by merely observing that as and when a recruitment exercise would be undertaken, petitioners' claim shall be considered in accordance with law. It is also contended that the petitioners have, otherwise, continued for substantially long under the interim order passed in the

¶13

special appeal.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners would not dispute the legal proposition that any working under the interim orders granted by the writ Court would not be of any avail to the petitioners once the writ petition itself has been dismissed on merits (See: State of U.P. and Others Vs. Raj Karan Singh , reported in 1998 (8) SCC 529).

¶15

Even if the order, cancelling the petitioners' regular recrutment in the year 1995 vide order dated 21.08.1995, is sustained, even then claim of the petitioners' appointment in terms of rule 5 would have to be examined by the authorities in accordance with law. Rule 5, as it existed in U.P. Collection Peon Service Rules, 2004, has been amended vide U.P. Collection Peon (Second Amendment) Service Rules, 2016, which provides as under:

¶16

"5. REcrutiment to the posts in the service shall be made from the following sources:

¶17

(i) Fifty percent posts by direct recruitment through the Selection Committee.

¶18

(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:

¶19

Provided that if suitable candidates are not available, the remaining vacancies shall be filled by direct recruitment under clause (i):

¶20

Provided further that all the existing vacancies available on the date of the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Collection Peon's Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2016 shall, only as one time measure, be filled by selection through the Selection Committee from amongst Seasonal Collection Peons who possess the requisite qualifications prescribed in clause (ii).

¶21

Explanation - Satisfactory work shall mean complying with the orders of the Collection Amin regarding the work of recovery of government dues, and accompanying the Collection Amin when he is travelling with government revenue or staying in his area (Halka). It shall also mean extending full cooperation in discharge of different types of service measures and performing the responsibilities entrusted to him in respect of the recovery of dues under the orders of Tehsildar and other higher officers including good conduct throughout."

¶22

The petitioners have contended before this Court that they have worked as Seasonal Collection Peons satisfactorily for at least 4 fasals and otherwise, fulfil necessary qualifications in terms of amended rule 5. Undisputedly, petitioners' claim for being offered regular appointment in terms of rule 5(ii) has not been examined on merits by the respondents so far. Such claim of the petitioner requires consideration in terms of the Rules, notwithstanding the dismissal of the petitioners' earlier petition and the special appeal. This position is amply clarified by the order passed in the special appeal itself. Since the petitioners' claim has

¶23

not been considered till date, in that regard, it would be in the interest of justice to dispose of this petition with a direction upon the 3rd respondent to accord consideration to the petitioners' claim in accordance with the rule 5(ii) of U.P. Collection Peon (Second Amendment) Service Rules, 2016 and in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

¶24

Order Date :- 2.7.2018 Amit Mishra

Arun Kumar Singh and 14 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Singh and 14 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Durgvijay and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Husain Ansari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Sajid Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhola Nath Bharatiya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ved Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sandeep Kumar Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others