- (1.) Umesh Chand Jain son of Sugan Chand Jai, Seasonal Collection Amin, is assailing the validity of the order dated 19.11.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 67045 of 2014 (Umesh Chandra Jain v. State of U.P. and others) wherein learned Single Judge has refused to quash the order dated 14.11.2000 and order dated 26.07.2014 passed by the Chairman/Secretary Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow.
(2.) Brief background of the case is that appellant was appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin in the Department on 10.03.1986. Appellant further claims that his work and recovery has always been upto the mark, and being senior most Seasonal Collection Amin in the District Agra, he was appointed on ad-hoc basis on a substantive post of Collection Amin on 16.01.1996. Appellant has been claiming that in the seniority list of the Seasonal Collection Amin, his name figured at Serial No. 20 and incumbents who have been placed below him, have been regularized, and in this background Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34118 of 1996 had been filed and therein directives were issued to consider the claim of the appellant. Learned Single Judge has mentioned in the order that representation of the appellant was disposed of with the direction that he was entitled for salary. Appellant filed another Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14669 of 1997 claiming regularization and said writ petition was finally decided on 20.04.2000. Pursuant to the directive issued by this Court, claim of the appellant has been turned down vide order dated 14.11.2000. Order dated 14.11.2000 has once again been subjected to challenge by the appellant in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13291 of 2001 (Umesh Chand Jain v. D.M. and others) and said writ petition was allowed on 10.04.2014 with the following direction:- "The petitioner is a Seasonal Collection Amin. He has been engaged as such on 10.3.1985 under the Collector, Agra. In 1995, a seniority list was published of the Seasonal Collection Amins, in which the petitioner was shown at serial no. 20. The petitioner apprehended that juniors to him may be regularized, therefore, he filed a representation before the authorities which was not being considered, which necessitated the filing of Writ Petition No. 14667 of 1997. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 20.4.2000 issuing a direction to decide the representation of the petitioner, which was not again being decided, therefore, the petitioner was compelled to file a Contempt Petition No. 3724 of 2000, in which notices were issued. Pursuant to the issuance of notice, the Collector vide order dated 14.11.2000 decided the representation of the petitioner. The Collector took two grounds, first that the petitioner's collections were below the norms and he was not at the stage of seniority where he can be considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the document for fasli year kharif 1405 in which the petitioner's collection has been shown to be Rs. 1,277/- whereas the criteria fixed was Rs. 1,166/-. Therefore, the collection for kharif of fasli year 1405 was much more than the norm fixed by the authorities. Further, the second ground of the Collector is that the petitioner is down in the seniority. The petitioner on that matter submits that in the seniority list of 1995 he was placed at serial no. 20, but in the seniority list of 2009 he has been placed at serial no. 52 which is practically impossible as the petitioner will only go higher in seniority list with the passage of time and cannot come down in the seniority list. That apart, the petitioner has constantly been agitating the matter for regularization, but for one reason or another his claim would not be considered. In the Counter affidavit it has been stated that as and when the proceedings will be initiated to regularize the Seasonal Collection Amin, the claim of the petitioner would also be considered. On this, it is submitted that number of appointments have been made, but the petitioner's claim has constantly been ignored. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as on today there are 39 posts available under the 35% quota of Seasonal Collection Amin to be regularized on the post of Collection Amin, as such, the claim of the petitioner cannot be ignored. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the petitioner has crossed the age of 45 years, as such, without relaxation by the State Government his claim cannot be considered. The crossing of the age bar is during the pendency of the writ petition. It is submitted that the petitioner has crossed the age of the 45 years in the year 2008 whereas the writ petition is pending since 2001, therefore, the age bar should not be the only criteria for denying the claim of the petitioner for regularization. In case the petitioner has crossed the age, then the matter may be referred to the appropriate authority for relaxing the age. Upon the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to regularization as regular Collection Amin and authority concerned is directed to decide the claim of the petitioner in view of the observation made above within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented before the authority concerned. Subject to the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is allowed. "
(3.) Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, claim of the appellant has once again been considered and turned down, and such action once again impelled the appellant to be before this Court by preferring Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 67075 of 2014 and thereafter claim of appellant has been turned down after exchange of pleadings, accordingly, appellant is before this Court by means of present Special Appeal.;