Disposed

Santosh Dhar Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Jul 2020WRIA/1089/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order disposes of a writ petition seeking regularization as Collection Amin, notional seniority, and salary arrears. The court directs the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra to consider the claim under specific judgments within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

District Magistrate, Sonbhadra directed to consider petitioner's claim for regularization within three weeks of producing this order.

Santosh Dhar Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1089 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Santosh Dhar Dwivedi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing Counsel.

¶6

Present writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:-

¶7

"(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 to consider the regularization of the petitioner on the post of Collection Amin under Rule 5 of U.P. Seasonal Collection Amin Rules, 1974 as amended by time to time considering the judgment passed in case of Pankaj Srivastava which is reported in 2013 (11) ADJ 473 within stipulated period, specified by this Hon'ble Court.

¶8

(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 after giving the joining to the petitioner on the post of collection Amin to give the notional seniority to the petitioner when the juniors than the petitioner were given joining, also pay the arrears of salary and current salary month to month."

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of having eligibility his case was not considered for regularization on the post of Collection Amin. He submits that his case is liable to be considered in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in State of U.P. & Ors. v. Pankaj Srivastava, 2013 (11) ADJ 473 wherein it was opined that 'satisfactory service' would mean that in last four fasals, Seasonal Collection Amins should have attained recovery with the prescribed norms of at least 70%. Expression 'last four fasals' would mean last four fasals out of total number of fasals in which he has worked. It does not mean that he must have actually working on date on which the Selection Committee applies its mind.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly juniors to the petitioner have been regularized but the authorities have discriminated in the matter. He submits that the claim of the petitioner is liable to be addressed by the competent authority in the light of the judgment in Pankaj Srivastava (Supra).

¶11

So far as age relaxation is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in Devki Nandan & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. , Writ Petition No.54923 of 2017 decided on 28.5.2018.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and with

¶13

the consent of parties, the writ petition stands disposed of asking the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularisation in the light of the judgments passed by this Court in Pankaj Srivastava (Supra) and Devki Nandan & Ors. (Supra) within three weeks from the date of production of copy of this order.

¶14

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶15

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶16

Order Date :- 6.7.2020 SP/

Santosh Dhar Dwivedi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Dhar Dwivedi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Jodhika Prasad Pandey Vs Ram Narayan Vishwakarma, District Inspector of School

Bilal Uddin Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Kripa Shankar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rampal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Neeraj Sharma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others