Allowed

Sanjai Kumar Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2019WRIA/14459/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition by seasonal Collection Amins challenging termination based on a Government Order dated 2001 that was superseded on their appointment date. The court directed reinstatement and payment of wages.

What did the court decide?

Reinstatement of petitioners as Seasonal Collection Amin and payment of salary/wages on a month to month basis.

Sanjai Kumar Yadav and Another Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14459 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Sanjai Kumar Yadav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate Shri Ashok Khare,

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

Petitioners, two in number, came to be appointed Seasonal Collection Amin in district Azamgarh, on 22 April 2003. Work and conduct of the petitioners being satisfactory, they were continued. In the seniority list of Seasonal Collection Amin dated 31 March 2014, the name of the petitioners finds place at Serial No. 217 and 220 respectively. The last seasonal appointment granted to the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by the fourth respondent/Additional District Magistrate, Finance & Revenue, Azamgarh, was on 6 January 2018.

¶8

Petitioners by the instant writ petition are assailing the order dated 17 May 2018, issued by the office of the District Magistrate, Azamgarh, to terminate the services of all Seasonal Collection Amins who came to be appointed after 30 April 2001, in violation of Government Order dated 29 August 2001.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are not disputing the date of appointment of the petitioners i.e. 22 April 2003, and on the said date the Government Order dated 29 August 2001 came to be superseded by the subsequent Government Order dated 21 June 2002, hence, it is urged that on the date of appointment of the petitioners as Seasonal Collection Amin, the Government Orders referred to in the impugned order insofar it relates to the petitioners were not available. Appointment of the petitioners was a fresh appointment. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners failed to meet the target provided as per the Government Order dated 21 June 2002, therefore, their services

¶10

are being terminated. Petitioners cannot be terminated on an imaginary ground as the Government Order being relied upon, was not available to the respondents while appointing the petitioners. In the counter affidavit, this fact is not being disputed.

¶11

On specific query, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Government Order referred to in the impugned order is prior to appointment of the date of the petitioners and stood superseded on the date of appointment.

¶12

I have perused the Government Order dated 29 August 2001 with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

The Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, by the order dated 29 August 2001, directed the Commissioner and Secretary, Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, and all the District Magistrates, to comply with the directions contained in the Government Order while appointing fresh Seasonal Collection Amin and also while considering renewal of the working Seasonal Collection Amins. It is noted in the order that while interpreting the Government Order dated 1 April 1992, wherein, the Seasonal Collection Amin failed to meet the target in four fasli could be included in the seniority list. The State Government, however, clarified that while making fresh appointment, candidature of all such Seasonal Collection Amins, who lack the target in four fasli should not be considered for appointment. Fresh appointment of Seasonal Collection Amin is to be resorted to only in the event where the Seasonal Collection Amin is not available in the seniority list. Further, direction issued was that all those Seasonal Collection Amins, who have put in 10-15 years can be considered for regularization/absorption under 35% quota as per the Rules. It follows that there was no prohibition in appointment of fresh Seasonal Collection Amin. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners appointed as Seasonal Collection Amins were dispensed with on having failed to meet the target or recoveries in four fasli . Pursuant to the impugned order, the fifth respondent has dispensed with the services

¶14

2 of 5

¶15

of the petitioners merely on the ground that petitioners came to be appointed after 2001 in violation of Government Order dated 26 June 2001 read with Government Order dated 29 August 2001, whereas, the said Government Order was not available to the respondents on the date, petitioners came to be appointed. The Government Order dated 21 June 2002, superciding the earlier Government Order was applicable on the date of appointment of the petitioners. The Government Order provides that only those Seasonal Collection Amins, who meet 70% of recovery, are entitled for reappointment. The relevant portion of the Government Order dated 21 June 2002 is extracted:

¶16

“’kklu }kjk lE;d fopkjksijkUr mijksDr 'kklukns’k vfrØfer djrs gq, fuEukuqlkj la’kksf/kr 'kklukns’k fuxZr fd;k tk jgk gS&

¶17

¼1½ mRrj izns’k jktLo laxzg vehu lsok fu;ekoyh&1992 esa fofgr O;oLFkkuqlkj 70 izfr’kr ls vf/kd olwyh djus okys lkef;d laxzg vehuksa dks gh iqufuZ;qfDr dh tk;s rFkk vfUre ckj Qlyh esa fu/kkZfjr ekud dk vf/kd olwyh djus okys lkef;d laxzg vehuksa ds fy;s fu/kkZfjr 35 izfr’kr inksa dks ,d vfHk;ku pyk djds fu;fer fu;qfDr dh tk;sA

¶18

¼2½ fu;fer vehuksa ls xzkeh.kksa {ks= esa 1 yk[k :i;s rFkk 'kgjh {ks= esa nks yk[k :i;s ekud ds vuqlkj olwyh djk;s tk;sA

¶19

d`i;k mijksDr vkns’kksa dk dM+kbZ ls vuqikyu lqfuf’pr djk;k tk;A”

¶20

Whereas the Government Order dated 26 June 2001 provides that inexperienced Seasonal Collection Amins would not be considered for appointment/reappointment but at the same time, the Government Order permits fresh appointment of Seasonal Collection Amins. The relevant portion of the Government Order is extracted:

¶21

“bl izdkj lkef;d laxzg vehu@lsodksa dh cukbZ xbZ ofj"Brk lwph esa ls gh fu;fer laxzg vehu@lsodksa dh fu;qfDr dh tk;sxhA 'kklu }kjk fnukad 2001-2001 esa ;g funsZ’k Hksts x;s Fks fd dksbZ Hkh fu;fer laxzg vehu@lsod dh fu;qfDr vuqHkoghu u;s ¼Qzs’k½ vH;fFkZ;ksa ls ugha dh tk;sxh] ijUrq mlds i’pkr Hkh 'kklu ds laKku esa ;g ckr vkbZ gS fd vusd tuinksa esa 'kklu ds vkns’kksa dk mYya?ku djrs gq, vuqHkoghu yksxksa dh lkef;d laxzg vehuks@lsodks ds inks ij fu;qfDr dh tk jgh gS vkSj 10&10 vkSj 15&15 o"kksZ ls dk;Z djus okys lkef;d laxzg vehuks@lsodks dks] de olwyh djus ds vk/kkj ij] lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k tk jgk gSA 'kklu us bls xEHkhjrk ls fy;k gS] D;ksafd blls lkef;d laxzg vehu@lsodksa dh izfr vU;k;iw.kZ O;ogkj gks

¶22

3 of 5

¶23

jgk gSA Hkfo"; esa lkef;d laxzg ¼vehu@lsodksa½ dks lsok fu;ekoyh ds izkfo/kkuksa ds vUrxZr gh ldkjkRed dk;Zokgh ds i’pkr gh lsok ls i`Fkd fd;k tk;sxkA

¶24

bl lEcU/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ’k gqvk gS fd ftu tuinksa esa fnukad 1-4-2001 ds i’pkr vuqHkoghu] u;s ¼Qzs’k½ lkef;d laxzg vehu@lsodksa dks fu;qfDr iznku dh xbZ gS] muds uke osru&fcy esa lfEefyr u fd;s tk;s vkSj mu yksxksa dh fu;qfDr rRdky fujLr djrs gq, mijksDrkuqlkj fu/kkZfjr izfØ;k ls cukbZ x;h ofj"Brk lwph ls gh lkef;d laxzg vehu@lsodksa dh fu;qfDr dh tk;A rn~uqlkj lsok fu;ekoyh esa mijksDrkuqlkj 'kklu Lrj ij la’kks/ku fopkjk/khu gSA”

¶25

Service conditions of Collection Amin is governed under the provisions of U.P. Collection Amins’ Service Rules, 1974, amended from time to time. ‘Seasonal Collection Amin’ has been defined under Rule 3 (i) to mean such Amins who have been appointed either for Rabi/Kharif or for both fasli. The Sub Divisional Magistrate is the appointing authority. All Seasonal Collection Amins appointed under the Rules are required to be absorbed pursuant to Rule 5 (b) under 35% quota, provided they have worked satisfactorily for not less than four fasli and are otherwise qualified.

¶26

In the backdrop of undisputed facts, the services of the petitioners could not have been terminated for violation of Government Order dated 29 August 2001, admittedly, the said Government order was superseded and non existent on the date on which the petitioners were appointed Seasonal Collection Amin. In other words, the Government order cannot became the basis for termination under which petitioners were not appointed. The Government order dated 21 August 2001, has no reference to the petitioners directly or indirectly.

¶27

Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Order accordingly.

¶28

The impugned order dated 17 May 2018 issued by the office of the District Magistrate, Azamgarh, is set aside and quashed to the extent it relates to the petitioners. Petitioners shall be reinstated as Seasonal

¶29

4 of 5

¶30

Collection Amin forthwith and shall be paid their salary/wages on month to month basis.

¶31

Order Date :- 23.9.2019 Mukesh Kr.

¶32

5 of 5

Sanjai Kumar Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjai Kumar Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Prakash Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sudeshwar Chaubey and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Rama Kant Prasad Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Lallu Vs Jagannath and 13 Others

Dr. Prem Swarup Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Anar Singh Vs Kotwal Singh and 19 Others