Dismissed

State of U.P.through Secretary,Department of Revenue and 4 Others v. Sanjai Kumar Yadav and Another

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2021SPLAD/1067/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal and the application for condonation of delay. The deletion of the respondent from service as Seasonal Collection Amin was held illegal, though the appeal itself lacked merit due to unacceptable delay.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay dismissed; appeal dismissed.

State of U.P.through Secretary,Department… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 1067 of 2020

¶3

Appellant :- State Of U.P.Through Secretary,Department Of Revenue And 4 Others Respondent :- Sanjai Kumar Yadav And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pranab Kumar Ganguli Counsel for Respondent :- Siddharth Khare

¶4

Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard on the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal of 378 days.

¶6

An application for condonation of delay has been filed which shows it to be due to administrative reasons, though, not sufficient to condone in the light of judgment of Supreme Court passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.971 of 2020 (State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Prem Chandra) decided on 27.11.2020. The application for condonation of delay is, thus, liable to be dismissed and otherwise also we do not find any merit in the appeal.

¶7

It is a case where the petitioner/ non-appellant has been discontinued as Seasonal Collection Amin after his engagement from time to time from the year 2003. The order to discontinue or not to engage the petitioner/ nonappellant was in reference to an order dated 17.05.2018. It provides for action to cancel the appointment of Seasonal Collection Amin if it was made in violation of the order dated 29.08.2001 and 21.06.2002. The direction was also given to initiate the enquiry against those officers who

¶8

defaulted in carrying out the direction in the Government Order. The petitioner/ non-appellant was discontinued without cancellation of his appointment, thus, action of the respondents was challenged.

¶9

The learned Single Judge found that the Government Order dated 29.08.2001 was superseded by the Order dated 21.06.2002 yet it has been relied by respondents. There was no embargo to engage the Seasonal Collection Amin at the time when petitioner/ non-appellant was engaged because the order dated 29.08.2001 was superseded by the Government in the year 2002 itself. Thus, the very basis taken by the respondents in their defence before the learned Single Judge was found to be without any material. It is also when the petitioner/ nonappellant has worked as Seasonal Collection Amin from year 2003 and no material exist about inefficiency in working. It is also fact that those engaged as Seasonal Collection Amin and has worked for 10 to 15 years are eligible for regularization in service towards 35% quota meant for it. The order dated 17.05.2018 gives direction to cancel the appointment if made in violation of Government Order dated 21.06.2002 but no order in pursuant to it has been passed rather petitioner/ nonappellant was discontinued without showing engagement to be in violation of Government Order dated 21.06.2002.

¶10

Taking overall facts into consideration, we do not find any reason to cause interference in the order passed by learned Single Judge.

¶11

It is more so when a reference of the U.P. Collection

¶12

Amins' Service Rules, 1974, as amended from time to time has been given. Rule (5) (b) of the Rules of 1974 provides for 35% quota for the absorption of Seasonal Collection Amins, thus, petitioner/ non-appellant having worked for more than 15 years by the time of his discontinuance or non-engagement is also effected from right for absorption and that too when no order of cancellation of appointment holding it to be in violation of Circular Dated 21.06.2002 was passed.

¶13

There is no merit in the appeal, thus, apart from the delay in filing the appeal without justified reasons the appeal is not otherwise having merit so as to ignore the delay or to condone it, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed so as the appeal.

¶14

Order Date :- 13.1.2021 V.S.Singh

State of U.P.through Secretary,Department of Revenue and 4 Others v. Sanjai Kumar Yadav and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P.through Secretary,Department of Revenue and 4 Others v. Sanjai Kumar Yadav and Another

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

Jitendra Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Aneeta Keserwani Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Maya Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anand Prakash Singh Vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vivek Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Asloom Khan @ Asloob Khan Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others