1. Heard learned Counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.
2. Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order dated 06.05.2019/06.06.2019, whereby the District Magistrate, Sultanpur has rejected the representation of the petitioner which was preferred in pursuance to the order dated 12.03.2019 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.27225 (SS) of 2019. Petitioners have further prayed that the opposite parties may be directed to consider and give the notional seniority to petitioners on the post of Collection Peon from the date of their initial appointment as Additional Collection Peon for the purpose of consequential financial benefits and accordingly fix the revised pension and pay to the same.
3. Submissions of learned Counsel for petitioners is that initially the petitioners were engaged as Seasonal Collection Peon in Tehsil Kadipur, District Sultanpur and thereafter, the services of the petitioners were regularized. The petitioners have been retired from service on 30.11.2013 and 31.05.2018 while they were working to the post of Collection Peon.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioners were continuously approached the concerned authorities for fixation of their seniority and other consequential service benefits from the date of their initial appointment on the post of Additional Collection Peon as they were selected in the year 1984 for the appointment on the post of Collection Peon. For redressal of their grievance, the petitioners had approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.7185 (SS) of 2019, which was disposed of with a direction to the opposite party no.2 to consider and dispose of the petitioners' representation by speaking and reasoned order. In pursuance to the said order, the District Magistrate has considered the case of the petitioner and rejected the same without assigning any cogent reason.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has again submitted that the District Magistrate while passing the impugned order has not considered the seniority list of 1984, which is illegal. Since the petitioners retired in 2013 and 2018 after getting the age of superannuation are entitled for notional seniority from the date of their initial appointment and after getting the notional seniority, they are also entitled for the financial benefit of salary and pension. The impugned order dated 06.05.2019 has been passed without taking into consideration the material available on record.
6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the list enclosed by the petitioner as Annexure-3 to the writ petition is merely a list of experienced persons for the purpose of appointing them on the post of Seasonal Collection Peon. He further submits that the services rendered before regular appointment cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of pension, therefore, the claim of the petitioners have no force and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. From the perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that the District Magistrate while rejecting the claim of the petitioners has recorded a finding that there is no seniority list at Tehsil level since 1984. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 06.05.2019 is quoted below:
Þ;kph viuh vf/ko"kZrk vk;q iw.kZ djds fnukad 30-11-2013 dks lsokfuo`Rr gks pqdk gSA ;kph dks lsokfuo`Rr ykHk isa'ku] xsP;qVh] uxnhdj.k ,oa jkf'kdj.k dk Hkqxrku fd;k tk pqdk gSA ;kph }kjk o"kZ&1984 dh ftl ofj"Brk lwph dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS og lwph rglhy Lrj ij lkef;d laxzg vuqlsodksa ds inksa ij fu;qfDr gsrq cuk;h x;h FkhA tuin Lrj ij o"kZ&1984 esa dksbZ ofj"Brk lwph ugha cuk;h FkhA fu;fer fu;qfDr ds iwoZ dh lsok,a lh0,l0vkj0 ds izLrj&361 ds vuqlkj isa'ku gsrq vgZ ugha gksrh gSa D;ksafd fu;fer fu;qfDr ls iwoZ dh lsokvksa dks vgZdkjh lsok ds :i esa tksM+s tkus dk izkfo/kku ugha gSAß
9. During the course of argument, learned Counsel for the petitioners has also not in a position to establish that the documents which are annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition is a seniority list prepared in the year 1984.
10. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any cogent reason to exercise discretionary jurisdiction for issuing any writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 06.05.2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.9.2019 akverma