Allowed

Sri Krishna Shukla v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2023WRIA/15440/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge allowed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a petitioner's regularization claim as Collection Amin. The court quashed an order that denied regularization solely due to age exceeding 45 years, directing the District Magistrate to refer the case to the Governor under a 2019 government order. Petitioner had exceeded recovery targets significantly.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 29.08.2022 quashed; District Magistrate directed to consider regularization via Governor referral under GO 22.02.2019 within two months.

Sri Krishna Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:179058

¶2

Court No. - 37

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15440 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Sri Krishna Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided.

¶8

Under challenge is the order dated 29.08.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition whereby the case of the petitioner for regularization as "Collection Amin" has been rejected. The ground of rejection as emerges from the order impugned so far as it pertains to the petitioner is that the petitioner is aged more than 45 years consequently, he cannot be considered for regularization.

¶9

The contention is that in terms of relevant Government orders more particularly order dated 22.02.2019 issued by the Government, a copy of which is part of annexure 5 to the writ petition (Page 66) where a Seasonal Collection Amin possesses the requisite eligibility for being regularized even though he has attained the age of 45 years yet his case for age relaxation can be referred to His Excellency Governor for the purpose of grant of age relaxation.

¶10

The argument is that as per the chart, which has been prepared by the respondents themselves, as emerges from a perusal of the order impugned, it is apparent that the petitioner, whose name finds placed at Serial No. 42 has attained 127 percent recovery viz-a-viz the recovery of 70 percent which is required for the purpose of regularization by the Seasonal Collection Amin and his work has also been graded as Excellent yet the respondents have rejected the claim of regularization of the petitioner on the ground that he is aged more than 45 years.

¶11

The argument is that once the relevant orders themselves provide for grant of age relaxation to those who have attained the age of 45 years provided they are eligible as per the rules for regularization consequently, there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to have rejected the claim of the petitioner solely on the ground of the petitioner being aged over 45 years without referring the case of the petitioner for age relaxation.

¶12

On the other hand, learned Standing counsel is unable to controvert the factual matrix as emerges from the order impugned including the petitioner having achieved 127 percent recovery and his work and conduct having been indicated as Excellent and the order dated 22.02.2019 which provides for referring of cases of those Seasonal Collection Amins who meet the eligibility criteria, but cannot be considered for regularization on the ground of having attained the age of 45 years for the purpose of age relaxation to His Excellency the Governor.

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties and having perused the records what emerges is that the case of the petitioner for regularization has been rejected vide order impugned dated 29.08.2022 solely on the ground of the petitioner having attained the age of 45 years. From the chart as indicated in the order impugned, it emerges that the petitioner has achieved a recovery of 127 percent and his work and conduct have also been indicated as Excellent. The sole ground for rejection of the claim of the petitioner is of he having attained the age of 45 years.

¶14

The respondents have themselves issued an order dated 22.02.2019 which provides that with respect to those Collection Amins who meet the criteria for the purpose of regularization but cannot be regularized on the ground of having attained the age of 45 years as provided under rules, the case should be referred to His Excellency the Governor for consideration of age relaxation.

¶15

From a perusal of the order impugned it does not emerge that despite the petitioner having achieved the criteria as specified for the purpose of regularization yet as he is aged more than 45 years consequently, his case should have been referred to His Excellency the Governor for the purpose of age relaxation. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the competent authority while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization vide order impugned dated 29.08.2022.

¶16

Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 29.08.2022, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, so far as it pertains to the petitioner, is quashed. The District Magistrate, Kushi Nagar is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization considering the order Government order dated 22.02.2019 which pertains to referring of the case of those Collection Amins who have attained the age of 45 years but otherwise eligible for regularization to His Excellency the Governor for the purpose of age relaxation.

¶17

Let such consideration be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶18

Order Date :- 15.9.2023 Pachhere/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sri Krishna Shukla v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Krishna Shukla 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Kumar and 81 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Om Prakash Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mr. Beeram Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rakesh Bharadwaj Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Dr. Shiv Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sanaullah Khan Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others