This court dismissed the writ petition filed by seasonal Collection Amins challenging the rejection of their claim for regularization. The court held that engagement under temporary provisions does not confer rights to regularization governed by specific service rules.
Writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5908 of 2022 Petitioner :- Ram Lal And Another Respondent :- State Public Service Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel representing the State-respondents no.2 and 3.
These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been instituted by the petitioners assailing the judgment and order dated 04.05.2022 passed by State Public Service Tribunal in Claim Petition No.1586 of 2014 whereby the claim petition has been dismissed. Accordingly, the validity of the order dated 13/21.05.2014 rejecting the claim of the petitioners for regularizing/regular appointment on the post of Seasonal Collection Amin has also been not acceded to.
Undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioners are said to have been engaged as Seasonal Collection Amin in DistrictShahjahanpur in the year 1989-90, however, their services were said to have been terminated on the ground that there was no work. Thereafter the petitioners instituted Writ Petition No.545 (S/S) of 1993 before the High Court wherein initially an interim order was passed providing therein that in case the work and post is available, then the petitioners shall be engaged as Seasonal Collection Amin and their emolument shall be paid. Pursuant to the said interim order passed in Writ Petition No.545 (S/S) of 1993, the petitioners are said to have been engaged as Seasonal Collection Amin. From their emolument, Public Provident Fund was also deducted. In the meantime, the petitioners attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2013 and 28.02.2014 respectively.
Writ Petition No.545 (S/S) of 1993 was finally disposed of on 18.09.2013 in terms of the interim order passed on 18.01.1993 with a further observation that in case the petitioners are entitled for regularization, their claim may be considered, expeditiously. In compliance of the said order dated 18.09.2013, whereby Writ Petition No.545 (S/S) of 1993 was disposed of, the claim of the petitioners was considered for regularization/regular appointment, which was rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Shahjahanpur by means of the order dated 13/21.05.2014. It is this order dated 13/21.05.2014 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, which was challenged by
the petitioners before the Tribunal.
The Sub Divisional Officer while considering the claim of the petitioners for regular appointment/regularization has traced the history of engagement of the petitioners and has observed that against the work done by the petitioners, they have been paid their emoluments and further that since the petitioners were not engaged in terms of the provisions contained in the service rules governing regular appointment, they cannot be given the benefits as applicable to regular employees.
The learned Tribunal while considering the claim of the petitioners has also considered the matter in detail and has observed that in terms of the provisions contained in U.P. Collection Amin Service Rules, 1974 appointment as regular Collection Amins is made up to 35% of the post/vacancies by way of direct recruitment from amongst Seasonal Collection Amins. The Tribunal has also observed that the said rules further lay down certain criteria for the Seasonal Collection Amins to be considered for regular appointment.
At this juncture, we may indicate that the regularization in service of an ah-hoc/temporary/daily wager/work charge employee is altogether a different incidence in service of an employee as compared to regular appointment under the relevant service rules.
So far as the regularization of ad-hoc and daily wagers/work charge employees is concerned, the State Government has framed certain rules under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India wherein claim of such ad-hoc/work charge/daily wagers employees is considered, however, for certain regular appointment against the post of regular Collection Amin, the provisions under the 1974 Rules, as observed above, are different.
We may, at this juncture, refer to the provisions contained in the Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Persons Working on Daily Wages or On Work Charge or On Contract in Government Departments On Group "C" and Group "D" Posts (Outside the Purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission) Rules, 2016, wherein Season Collection Amins have been completely ousted from zone of consideration for regularization in service.
Admittedly, appointment of the appellants-petitioners was never made on the post of regular Collection Amins in terms of the 1974 Rules.
For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the judgment and order passed by the learned State Tribunal which is under challenge before us. The writ petition is being devoid of merit which is hereby dismissed .
Order Date :- 12.9.2022/akhilesh
Digitally signed by AKHILESHWAR KUMAR Date: 2022.09.14 19:12:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the dismissal of a claim for regularization of seasonal collection amins has merit.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization as a Collection Amin under the applicable service rules despite long engagement.
Ram Lal
Another
State Public Service Tribunal
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Saurabh Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
