The petitioner is a Seasonal Collection Peon and claimed his absorption under the 50% quota. The claim of the petitioner was that he has worked for four faslis and, therefore, he is entitled for absorption. By the impugned order dated 2.8.2011, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Jaunpur rejected the claim on the ground that the petitioner had worked only 3 faslis for the periods 1.8.1985 to 30.9.1985, 30.10.1989 to 30.11.1989 and 8.2.1999 to 31.3.1999.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the S.D.M., Sadar, Jaunpur had issued a show cause notice dated 25.1.2010 wherein it was stated that the petitioner had worked for the periods 1.12.1992 to 21.12.1992, 1.12.1993 to 31.12.1993, 1.7.1995 to 31.7.1995 and 1.2.1999 to 31.3.1999. When, as per the record, the aforesaid dates have been given then how in the impugned order the working periods from 1.8.1985 to 30.9.1985, 30.10.1989 to 30.11.1989 and 8.2.1999 to 31.3.1999 have been mentioned. The periods mentioned in the impugned order are patently incorrect and contrary to the periods mentioned in the show cause notice and if the periods mentioned in the show cause notice are being taken, it is clear that the petitioner worked for four faslis and entitled for the claim of absorption.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to have substance.
Let the S.D.M., Sadar, Jaunpur, who has passed the order, may file his personal affidavit and explain that from where he has taken the working periods from 1.8.1985 to 30.9.1985, 30.10.1989 to 30.11.1989 and 8.2.1999 to 31.3.1999 while in the show cause notice, different dates are mentioned.
Put up on 14.9.2011 as fresh.
Till the next date of listing, the operation of the order dated 2.8.2011 passed by the S.D.M., Sadar, Jaunpur shall remain stayed.
Order Date :- 5.9.2011 OP