Pushpendra Kumar Sharma and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Learned Standing Counsel has made a statement at Bar that he is in a position to argue the matter and he does not propose to file counter-affidavit in view of the order proposed to be passed.

¶12

With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the admission stage.

¶13

The case projected by the writ petitioners who are two in numbers in so far as the writ petitioner no. 1, he was engaged as Seasonal Collection Amin in Tehsil Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahar in the year 2018 and he continuously worked there from 13.11.2018 to 01.03.2022, a total number of 811 days and from 15.07.2022 to 24.06.2024, a total number of 555 day in Tehsil Anoop Shahar, District Bulandshahar. Similarly, the writ petitioner no. 2 was engaged as Seasonal Collection Amin in Tehsil Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahar from 24.05.2019 to 01.03.2022, a total number of 692 days and from 30.05.2022 to 24.06.2024, a total number of 601 day in Tehsil Anoop Shahar, District Bulandshahar. It is also claimed that the collection percentage of the writ petitioners' was more than 70% in the last four fasali years and there was nothing adverse against them at any point of time. It is also case of the writ petitioners that the seniority list was published in the year 2023, wherein, name of the writ petitioners stood at serial no. 44 and 47 respectively. However, due to typing error the date of initial appointment of

¶14

WRIA No. 17712 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

the writ petitioners was wrongly mentioned as 12.12.2000 and 06.01.2000. A writ petition came to be preferred by one Madan Pal Singh bearing Writ-A No. 7625 of 2024 alleging irregularity in engagement of Seasonal Collection Amin in District Bulandshahar and an order came to be passed by this Court on 16.5.2024, which reads as under.

¶17

" The present petition has been filed stating that the Seasonal Collection Amins in District Bulandshahar are being engaged irregularly for extraneous consideration.

¶18

It is the grievance of the petitioner that the inquiry in the aforesaid appointment instituted by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut is not being concluded by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahar.

¶19

The petitioner may approach the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut who shall do the needful.

¶20

The petition is disposed of. "

¶21

In pursuance of the aforesaid writ Court order, an inquiry was conducted on the behest of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut/respondent no. 2 and the notices were issued to the writ petitioners dated 15.6.2024 alleging that their appointment was made after 2001 and if their engagement is prior to 2001, the relevant evidence regarding the same be produced. The writ petitioners submitted their evidence of working from 2018-2024 respectively. Thereafter, a report was also called upon by the Tehsildars of the concerned Tehsil regarding the engagement of the writ petitioners, which came to be submitted on 02.01.2023 and 30.10.2025. However, now in pursuance of the inquiry report stated to have been submitted by the respondent no. 2 dated 23.8.2024, the writ petitioners' services have been dispensed with bearing in mind the Government Order dated 29.8.2001.

¶22

Questioning the order dated 23.8.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2, which seeks to dispense with the services treating the appointment of the writ petitioners contrary to the Government Order dated 29.8.2001, the present writ petition has been preferred.

¶23

Learned counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that the Government

¶24

WRIA No. 17712 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

Order dated 29.8.2001 stands superseded by virtue of Government Order dated 21.6.2002. According to him now the recurse of Government Order dated 29.8.2001 stands diluted and extinguished in the wake of the Government Order dated 21.6.2002. He further submits that the said aspect of the matter came into consideration by this Court in Writ-A No. 14459 of 2018, Sanjay Kumar Yadav and another v. State of U.P. and 4 others , decided on 23.9.2019 wherein this Court opined that any adverse action taken in pursuance of the Government Order dated 29.8.2001 would be illegal. Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing the findings as well as the order dated 23.8.2024 in so far as it seeks to dispense with the services of the writ petitioners.

¶27

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that it is a misconception on the part of the writ petitioners that the report dated 23.8.2024 is an order. However, he submits that bare perusal of the relevant extract which deals with the writ petitioners, it appears that the Government Order dated 29.8.2001 has been taken into consideration, which stood dispensed with on 21.6.2002.

¶28

I have heard rival submissions and perused the records. Facts are not an issue. It is also not an issue that in pursuance of an order passed on 16.5.2024 in Writ-A No. 7625 of 2024, a report came to be submitted which according to the writ petitioners is an order passed by the respondent no. 2, wherein, following was observed.

¶29

" अतः उपरोक्त से स्पष्ट है िक श्री अनुराग दत्त शमार् पुत्र श्री सतीश चन्द, िनवासी ग्राम पनवर। य श्री पुष्पेन्द्र कुमार शमार् पुत्र जय प्रकाश शमार् िनवासी ग्राम पचदेवरा की सीजनल संग्रह अमीन के पद पर वषर् 2001 से पूवर् िनयुिक्त के सम्बन्ध में कोई प्रमािणक साक्ष्य उपलब्ध नहीं है, िजस कारण नका दोनों व्यिक्तयों को वतर्मान में सीजनल संग्रह अमीन के पद पर शासनादेश संख्या-2159/1-7-2001-राजस्व अनुभाग-7, िदनांक 29.08.2001 के प्रािवधानों के अनुसार िनयुक्त िकये जाने योग्य नहीं पाया जाता है। उपिजलािधकारी अनूपशहर के पत्रांक2096/एस.टी.एस.डी.एम./2024. िदनाक 22.07.2024 द्वारा अपर िजलािधकारी (िव०/रा०) बुलन्दशहर को प्रेिषत आख्या के अनुसार उक्त दोनों व्यिक्तयों (4: अनुराग दत्त शमार् पुत्र श्री रातीश बन्द, िनवासी ग्राम पचदेवरा व श्री पुष्पेन्द्र कुमार शमार् पुत्र जय शमार् िनवासी ग्राम पचदेवरा) के द्वारा वषर् 2001 से पूवर् सीजनल संग्रह अमीन के रूप में कायर् करने का प्रमाण उपलब्ध न होने पर भी दोनो व्यिक्तयों को िदनांक 13.11.2018 से िदनांक 01.03.2022 तक जगील अनूपशहर में सीजनल संग्रह अमीन के रूप में िनयुक्त िकया जाना शासनादेश संख्या-2159/1-72001-राजस्व अनुभाग-7. िदनांक 29.08.2001 के प्रािवधानों का स्पष्ट रूप से उल्लघंन है, िजसके िलए उत्तरदायी तत्कालीन अिधकारीगण / कमर्चारीगण को िचिन्हत कर उनके िवरुद्ध िवभागीय कायर्वाही हेतु

¶30

WRIA No. 17712 of 2025

¶31

4

¶32

'िजलािधकारी बुलन्दशहर के स्तर से िनणर्य िलया जाना आवश्यक है"

¶33

A perusal of the relevant extract as referred to above would reveal that services of the writ petitioners were dispensed on the basis of Government Order dated 29.8.2001. In Sanjay Kumar Yadav (supra) , the following was observed.

¶34

" 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. "

¶35

Apparently, the entire basis of dispensing with the services of the writ petitioners is based upon the Government Order dated 29.8.2001, which on the date of passing of the order superseded by the Government Order dated 21.6.2002. Thus, accordingly the writ petition stands disposed of with following directions:-

¶36

The writ petitioners shall submit a comprehensive representation along with self attested copy of the writ petition and the certified copy of the order before Respondent no. 3 by 12.12.2025, who on the said motion shall proceed to consider the claim of the writ petitioners in accordance with law within a period of two months, from the date of production of certified copy of the order bearing in mind that effect of the Government Order dated 29.8.2001 stood superseded by the Government Order dated 21.6.2002.

¶37

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

¶38

November 25, 2025

¶39

A.K.Srivastava

¶40

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pushpendra Kumar Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpendra Kumar Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prince Tyagi vs the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Computer Operator Grade-B / Assistant Sub Inspector Manu Saini vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sabhajeet Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rashmi Devi Mishra vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Gopal Ji Tiwari vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahendra Kumar Yadav and 9 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others