- (1.) Heard Shri R.B. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri H.C. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
(2.) By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 26.12.2011 (Annexure No. 14 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no.3 and further to grant all consequential benefits to him.
(3.) Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that the petitioner was appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin on 01.07.1978 and he continued till 30.09.1981. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed on 20.03.1982 on a temporary post of Collection Amin and continued till his retirement i.e. 31.12.2011. The service book of the petitioner had been prepared by the respondents wherein the nature of appointment of petitioner had been mentioned as 'temporary' and nature of post as 'substantive'. The petitioner had been given benefit of annual increment, earned leave and the benefit of pay fixation in the consequence of Vth Pay Commission in the year 1996. In this regard, the service book of the petitioner has been filed as annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. The respondents have regularised the service of the petitioner under the provision of U.P. Collection Amin Service Rules, 1974 and the selection committee recommended for regularisation of the petitioner along with respondent No. 4 by a common recommendation order dated 02.05.2003 which was approved by the District Magistrate on 03.05.2003. On assumption of wrong facts, the respondent No. 2 vide common order dated 2/3-8-2003 had cancelled the regularisation of the petitioner along with respondent No. 4. Being aggrieved with the cancellation order dated 2/3-8-2003, the petitioner had filed Writ A No. 28865 of 2004 (Ashok Kumar & Others v. State of U.P. & others) in which stay order was granted and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 04.09.2009 with following observations:- "The petitioners who were Seasonal Collection Amins have sought regularisation under 35 percent quota provided under Rule 5 (1) of the U.P. Collection Amin Service Rules, 1974. Earlier, the petitioners had approached this court by filing writ petition no.19850 of 1993 and this Court directed the authority concerned to regularise the services of the petitioners within specified time as per the select list prepared by the authority, but one of the selected candidate is said to have expired, therefore, the entire selection was cancelled. One of the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition had filed writ petition No. 59738 of 2005, Ram Uchhah Verma and another v. State of U.P. and others in which this Court vide its order dated 7.5.2009 has held that on account of death of one person in the select list, the entire select list cannot be cancelled. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is directed that the petitioners shall also get the same benefit as that of the petitioners of writ petition no.59738 of 2005, Ram Uchhah Verma and another v. State of U.P. and others decided on 7.5.2009. The present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid decision. ";