Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 43533 of 2013 Petitioner :- Shravan Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner has sought regularization of his services under rule 5 of the U.P. Collection Amin Service Rules, 1974. His claim was earlier rejected by the District Magistrate, Fatehpur, vide order dated 15.7.2009. The reason for rejection of petitioner's claim was that he had failed to secure 70% and above recovery during the last four fasals. This order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Writ Petition No. 60696 of 2009, which was allowed vide following order passed on 27.2.2010:-
"It is, therefore, seen that if after issuance of citation the amount is actually deposited by the defaulter in the Department, such collection shall not go to the credit of the Sesaonal Collection Amin even though the Government may have charged recovery charges. Such a stand taken by the authorities is not correct. Once the citation is issued the defaulter can either deposit the amount in the Tehsil through the Collection Amin or directly in the Department. The citation is served through the Collection Amin and, therefore, there appears to be no good reason to deny the collection of such amount to the credit of Collection Amin while determining his realisation. Even the land revenue dues deposited directly in Tehsil shall go to the credit of the Collection Amin while determining his realisation and there appears to be no good reason to exclude this amount from the reasliation of the Amin concerned for the purpose of Rule 5 of the Rules. Even otherwise, as noticed hereinabove, such deposits even if made by the Debtors directly in the Tehsil are entered by the Amin in the relevant records.
The District Magistrate is, therefore, required to calculate the percentage of recovery made by the petitioners during the last four Fasals in accordance with the said procedure.
The order dated 15th July, 2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Fatehpur is, accordingly, set aside. The matter is remitted to the District Magistrate to pass a fresh order on the representation filed by the petitioners in the light of the observations made above.
The petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above."
Pursuant to the aforesaid direction the claim of petitioner has been re-considered and rejected vide order impugned dated 14.8.2018. The order impugned reiterates that petitioner's recovery is below 70%. From the figures placed his recovery is worked out to 63%. It is also recorded that recovery expected from the petitioner was Rs.11,50,000/-, but he has actually recovered Rs.7,21,043/- and thus the percentage works out to 63%.
The order impugned has been assailed on the ground that the actual recovery assigned to petitioner was only Rs.8 lacs against which petitioner recovered Rs.7,21,043/-, which is 74%. It is also stated that the targeted recovery cannot be relied upon for the purposes of evaluating percentage of recovery by a particular Amin, inasmuch as Amin is expected to recover the amount, which is entrusted to be recovered by him, and for such purposes an imaginary figure cannot be introduced.
Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on previous occasion a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in which it is clearly stated in para 3 that the actual recovery assigned to petitioner was Rs.8 lacs during the last four fasals against which he recovered Rs.7,21,043/-. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in which it is admitted in para 5 that total sum of Rs.11,50,000/- was expected to be recovered by the petitioner against which he had recovered Rs.7,21,043/-. What is further stated by the respondent in para 5 is that petitioner was expected to recover Rs.1 lac per month and as he has worked for 345 days in four fasals to enforce recovery, his target was to recover Rs.11,50,000/-, but he recovered only Rs.7,21,043/- and the actual percentage would work out to 63%. The stand taken by the respondents in that regard cannot be accepted. The recovery of 70% in a specific fasal is expected to be made by a Seasonal Collection Amin against the total allotted recovery which is expected to be realized by him. An imaginary figure for such purpose cannot be relied upon. The targeted recovery is not shown to be based upon the actual recovery entrusted for being recovered by a Seasonal Collection Amin. He cannot be expected to be assessed with reference to an imaginary figure. Respondents have not explained as to on what basis recovery would be expected from the petitioner when it is not even assigned him. The respondents are therefore not justified in observing that petitioner's recovery is only 63%. The recovery made by the petitioner would have to be examined with reference to the actual recovery assigned to the Seasonal Collection Amin.
Although it is stated in supplementary counter affidavit that recovery allotted to petitioner is not Rs.8 lacs, but no specific amount has been disclosed in the affidavit, which may have been allotted to him. A target of Rs.1 lac per month has been given to all persons which is apparently not based upon the actual amount sought to be recovered by each of such Seasonal Collection Amin. 70% percentage would have to be calculated with reference to the actual recovery entrusted to a person and not on the basis of any imaginary figure.
Writ petition, accordingly, succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 14.8.2012 stands quashed. The authority concerned is directed to examine petitioner's claim for regularization, afresh, and his recovery of Rs.7,21,043/- during the last four fasals would be viewed against the actual recovery entrusted to him and not on any imaginary figure, within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019 Ashok Kr.