Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 56636 of 2010 Petitioner :- Jainuddin Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Tiwari,Shamasul Eslam Counsel for Respondent :- C. S. C.,B.L. Ram
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner claims to have been appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin on 1.3.1969 and thereafter since 1981 without any break. It appears that the U.P. Collection Amins' Service Rules, 1974 was amended in 1992. By virtue of Rule 5(1) of the Rules, 35% of existing vacancy on the post of Collection Amin was to be filled from the Seasonal Collection Amin. A circular was also issued on 10.12.2002 to undertake an exercise for such appointment.
It appears that a Committee of Officers found the petitioner entitled for appointment to the post of Collection Amin and a recommendation was made for exemption from maximum age otherwise fixed for appointment and thereafter to offer regular appointment to the petitioner. This recommendation, dated 2.5.2003, however, was not acted upon and cancelled vide order dated 2/3.08.2003 and, therefore, petitioner claims to have approached this Court by filing writ petition no. 59738 of 2005 which was allowed vide following orders passed on 7.5.2009:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for respondents.
It is pointed out that petitioners along with 8 more seasonal collection amins have been selected for appointment on the post of regular collection amin under 35% quota of seasonal collection amin, which is revealed from select list dated 2.05.2003 contained in Annexure-3 of the writ petition. After the selection was made, one selected candidate namely Mainuddin Ahmad has died, as a result of which the entire selection has been cancelled. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that if one selected candidate has died subsequently after selection, in that event of the matter, another person who may be placed in waiting list would have been offered appointment or his vacancy in absence of such candidate would have been forwarded in the next selection but the entire selection cannot be set aside on that ground one. Accordingly, the order dated 02/03.08.2003 passed by District Magistrate, Ballia is hereby quashed. The District Magistrate, Ballia is directed to effectuate the selection held on 2.05.2003 and implement the select list. Since the petitioners have already been appointed on regular basis and this Court vide order dated 08.09.2005 has stayed the impugned order dated 3rd August 2003, therefore, the petitioners shall remain continue on their posts as a regular collection amin from the date of their appointment.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, writ petition succeeds and is allowed."
It is alleged that subsequent order passed on 2/3.8.2003 was also stayed by this Court on 29.7.2004 in writ petition no. 28865 of 2004. The District Magistrate has ultimately passed an order offering substantive appointment to petitioner on the post of Collection Amin on probation vide order dated 28.8.2009. Petitioner thereafter has superannuated on 31.10.2009. It is thereafter that the petitioner has raised a claim for payment of pension and since no decision has been taken, the petitioner is before this Court.
A counter affidavit has been filed in which it is stated that petitioner was engaged on the post of Seasonal Collection Amin and he has worked from time to time. It is contended that petitioner has been appointed substantively only in August, 2009 and has superannuated on 31.10.2009. It is urged that since petitioner has not completed 10 years qualifying service as Collection Amin, therefore, he is not entitled to payment of pension.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.
From the materials placed, it is apparent that petitioner was engaged only as Seasonal Collection Amin from time to time. His engagement is not shown to have been made against any substantive pensionable post. It was only in the year 2003 that the petitioner's claim for substantive appointment on the post of Collection Amin was considered, but no letter of appointment is shown to have been issued to him. Substantive appointment has been issued to petitioner only in the year 2009. Even if petitioner's claim of appointment in the year 2003 is accepted, in view of the observation made by this Court in Writ Petition No. 59738 of 2005, yet the petitioner would not be entitled to pension as his working would only be of six years whereas the qualifying services for pension under the rules is 10 years. Services rendered by petitioner as Seasonal Collection Amin otherwise cannot be counted or treated towards qualifying service as it is not shown that such working is in a pensionable establishment. In such circumstances, no relief can be granted to petitioner.
The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.9.2021 Ranjeet Sahu