Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 38660 of 2017 Petitioner :- Ram Lakhan Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
After series of writ petitions filed from time to time, petitioner's services have been regularized on 11.06.2016 by the District Magistrate, Mainpuri. Petitioner, thereafter, has made a representation for granting the benefit of service from 16.11.2002 till the date of superannuation on the ground that petitioner had already completed more than nine years' service in the year 2002 and had acquired right to be regularized against 35% vacancy in the year 2002, itself.
It is also stated that since petitioner has otherwise superannuated, therefore, the services rendered by him from 2002 onwards ought to be counted for the purpose of grant of retiral benefits. The representation made in this regard since has not been considered, the petitioner is before this Court.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State contending that in the year 2008, 17 other Collection Amin were selected, but petitioner's name was not included. It is also stated that recovery of the petitioner was 51% and his previous services are not liable to be included.
It appears that name of the petitioner was not included in the select list of the year 2008. Grievance in that regard was raised by the petitioner and ultimately his claim was directed to be considered. Such claim of the petitioner was rejected on 29.05.2014 on a ground which was found unsustainable by this Court in Writ Petition No.47748 of 2014. The recovery of 51% has also not been specified with reference to the specific period.
Authorities were required to consider petitioner's claim for regular appointment under Rule 5 (1) of U.P. Collection Amin Service Rules, 1974, on the date he acquired entitlement on the basis of his working as Seasonal Collection Amin. Though, the order of regularization has been passed in the year 2016, but it nowhere specifies the year when his services were examined for appointment on the post of Collection Amin.
Prima facie, it appears that petitioner had worked for more than nine years in the year 2002, itself and was allowed to continue vide order dated 16.11.2002, in the event persons junior to him were continuing.
In such circumstances, the third respondent is directed to examine petitioner's claim afresh with reference to the date from when the benefit of appointment would be available to him in terms of Rule 5 of U.P. Collection Amin Service Rules, 1974, within a period of four months from today.
All consequential benefits shall be extended, accordingly.
The fact that petitioner has retired, in the meantime, shall not be the ground to deny consideration to his claim.
Writ petition is accordingly disposed off.
Order Date :- 28.9.2021 Atul