Allahabad High Court
Vijay Shankar Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 4 March, 2020
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 30 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3570 of 2020 Petitioner :- Vijay Shankar Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Sinha,Mahesh Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The present petition has been filed claiming that the petitioner was appointed as a Seasonal Collection Amin 15.5.1989 and continued to work, however, the petitioner was not regularised although he was entitled to be considered for regularisation. It is further argued that one junior person Shiv Kumar Lal, who was appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin in the year 1991. His services has been regularised with effect from 17.1.1992 whereas the petitioner was denied the benefits. He further states that the services of the petitioner have been regularised on 25.7.2016, however, the benefit given to the persons of regularisation with effect from 17.1.1992 has not been accorded to the petitioner "Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that considering the case of Ramanand Yadav and one more person Chandra Bhushan Yadav this Court has allowed Writ Petition No. 64644 of 2011 (Praduman Singh and another vs. State of U.P. and others) vide judgment and order dated 4.2.2016 and the present controversy is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgement, which was based on the judgment of this Court dated 12.5.2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 62250 of 2013 (Harish Chandra Tiwari and others vs. State of U.P. and others). The aforesaid judgment dated 4.2.2016 passed in Writ Petition No. 64644 of 2011 is quoted as under:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to provide benefit of regularization to petitioners with effect from 17.1.1992 on which date juniors to the petitioners have been regularized and further provide all consequential benefit with effect from 17.1.1992 itself.
The petitioners were appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin on 22.4.1983 and 30.4.1983 respectively. They claim regularization under U.P. Collection Amin Service Rules, 1974. Names of the petitioners stand at Serial nos. 8 and 11 of the Seniority List dated 21.3.2003. Submission is that two persons namely Chandra Bhushan Yadav and Ramanand Yadav whose names stand at Serial nos. 11 and 17 were granted regularization with effect from 17.1.1992 whereas the claim of the petitioners has not been considered. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the claim of other Seasonal Collection Amin namely Sri Harish Chandra Tiwari at Serial no. 3, Hare Ram Mishra at Serial No. 4, Somnath Mani at Serial no. 5, Ram Kishore Yadav at Serial no. 1 and Sri Om Prakash Pandey at Serial no. 6 have been granted similar relief by this Court vide judgment and order dated 12.5.2015 passed in Writ A No. 62250 of 2013, Harish Chandra Tiwari and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, which is quoted as under:
"Heard Shri A.B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Mata Prasad, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The petitioners, who are working as Collection Amins are seeking quashing of the order dated 26.6.2013 whereby their claim for consequential benefits has been rejected on the ground that while deciding their W.P. No. 1425(S/S) of 2004 the High Court had not granted them any consequential benefit as granted to Chandra Bhushan Yadav and Ramanand Yadav, the petitioners of W.P. No. 23804 of 2000, which writ petition was decided by judgement dated 17.1.2001 as well as the direction given in special appeal no. 390 of 2001 State of U.P. and other Vs. Chandra Bhushan Yadav decided on 24.4.2003. It has also been stated in the impugned order that as per Rules, the petitioners were required to complete 6 years of continues satisfactory service plus a total of 14 years of satisfactory service to be entitled for grant of selection grade as well as promotional grade. It has been stated that the petitioners have completed a total of 6 years 9 months and 23 days on the date of consideration and therefore they are not entitled to the selection grade or the promotional grade.
Shri A.B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly stated that the petitioners are not claiming the selection grade or promotional grade at present but atleast they are entitled to parity with regard to Chandra Bhushan Yadav and Ramanand Yadav so far as the other consequential benefits are concerned, which have been denied to them only on the ground that there was no order in their case as was in the case of Chandra Bhushan Yadav and Ramanand Yadav.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that this is no ground for denying the consequential benefits to the petitioners who are undisputedly situated at part with Chandra Bhushan Yadav and Ramanand Yadav and therefore are entitled to the benefits which are otherwise being given to Chandra Bhushan Yadav and Ramanand Yadav.
This writ petition is therefore disposed of with a direction to the respondents to grant all consequential benefit to the petitioners as granted to Chandra Bhushan Yadav and Ramanand Yadav but the petitioners will not be entitled to selection grade or promotional grade as of now unless they complete the requisite length of service as provided in the Rules, as referred in the impugned order."
Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief of benefit of regularization as claimed in this writ petition with effect from 17.1.1992. However, he could not dispute that other candidates have been granted relief by this Court and the persons mentioned in the seniority list who are junior to the petitioners have been granted similar relief by this Court.
Sri A.B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners states that no special appeal was filed by the State challenging the order dated 12.5.2015 passed in Writ A No. 62250 of 2013 quoted above.
In such view of the matter, I do not find any good ground to take a different view in this case also.
The present writ petition is also allowed in terms of judgment and order dated 12.5.2015 passed in Writ A No. 62250 of 2013, Harish Chandra Tiwari and others Vs. State of U.P. and others.
No costs."
In view of the said judgement of this Court, the writ petition is disposed off with liberty to approach the respondent no. 2 by filing a fresh representation within a period of four weeks from today and in the event such representation is filed the same shall be considered and decided in the light of the judgement dated 4.2.2016 as extracted above within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is disposed off in terms of the order passed above.
Order Date :- 4.3.2020 Puspendra