- (1.) DEVI Prasad Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, I proceed to decide the writ petition finally at the admission stage. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the impugned order dated 30. 1. 2008 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) by which claim of the petitioner for regularisation has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner's total recovery was 69. 54%, which is less than the required percentage, i. e. 70%. The petitioner, who is a collection peon, has been discharging duty since 1993. The petitioner claims regularisation on the basis of satisfactory service of last four fasli years.
(2.) ACCORDING to U. P. Collection Peon Service Rules, 2004 (in short 'rules'), it is not mandatory for the peon to establish that he recovered the dues to the tune of 70%. The duty of the collection peon is to assist the Collection Amin to recover the dues. Though under the relevant rules with regard to Collection Amin the criterion for recover of 70% dues has been provided, but under the Service Rules of collection peon, no such criterion has been provided. Assisting peon ordinarily does not seem to be responsible for the lapse of recovery on the part of the Collection Amin unless the conduct of such peon is deprecated along with some material. There appears to be no material on record which may indicate that the petitioner's conduct and work were not satisfactory while performing duty. While rejecting the claim of the petitioner the only ground relied upon by the competent authority is that the average collection was 69. 54%, i. e. , less than 70%. No finding has been recorded while passing the impugned order relating to petitioner's work and conduct except the fact that total recovery was less than 70%. However, it has been observed in the impugned order that the satisfactory work means, more than 70% of recovery in last four fasli years. The observation made by the district authority seems to be misconceived. Under Rule 5 of the Rules, the 'satisfactory work' has been defined in the explanation clause, providing that the peon should have extended full cooperation for the 70% realization of dues. For convenience, Rule 5 of the Rules is reproduced as under : "5. Source of recruitment.- Recruitment to the posts in the service shall be made from the following sources : (i) Fifty per cent by direct recruitment through the selection committee. (ii) Fifty per cent posts shall be filled through the selection committee from amongst such seasonal collection peons who have worked satisfactorily for at least four fasals and whose age on the first day of July of the year in which selection is made does not exceed 45 years : Provided that if suitable candidates are not available, the remaining vacancies shall be filled by direct recruitment under Clause (i ). Explanation.- Satisfactory work shall mean extending full cooperation in at least seventy per cent realization as per prescribed standard fixed by the Government during the last four fasals and good conduct throughout. " In case, the recovery of the Collection Amin was less than 70% in spite of full cooperation and assistance of the peon like the petitioner then there appears to be no justification on the part of the authorities not to regularise the services of the collection peon. Things would have been different in case the Collection Amin with whom a collection peon is attached submits a report or some complaint is received, which may indicate the fact that because of lack of assistance of the collection peon, recovery proceeded to less than 70%, then in such situation, of course, the collection peon may not be entitled for regularisation. In the present case, it has been submitted by the petitioner that he extended full cooperation and assistance to recover the dues above the target fixed by the district authorities. In case, there is short, for that in the absence of any material on record, the petitioner cannot be held responsible. Moreover, the average recovery of the petitioner is 69. 54%, in round figure being more than half, the average may be taken as 70%. Thus, a plain reading of Rule 5 (supra) indicates that the satisfactory services of a peon should be judged keeping in view the assistance or cooperation extended by him in the process of recovery of dues. It has not been disputed at bar that the duty of the collection peon is to provide assistance and cooperation during the course of recovery of dues to the Collection Amin, who moves along with the collection peon to recover the dues as the target is fixed by the district authorities or the Government for the Collection Amins. As assisting body, it is always expected that the collection peon shall provide necessary assistance as desired by the Collection Amin while moving in the field to recover the dues. The satisfactory work on the part of the collection peon means the assistance provided, by him to the Collection Amin or the other authorities during discharge of duty. In case, the collection peon extends full cooperation and assistance during the course of recovery of dues and he possess good conduct throughout then for any deficiency or shortfall in recovery, he or she should not be held responsible.
(3.) FROM the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the District Magistrate, Hamirpur held the petitioner responsible for deficiency of recovery, which is 69. 54%. However, he has not recorded any finding that because of petitioner's non-cooperative attitude or because of some complaint sent by the Collection Amin against the petitioner or for any dereliction in duty the recovery was less than 70%. In the absence of such material the collection peon ordinarily should not be held responsible for any shortfall in recovery of dues. The District Magistrate, Hamirpur failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 30. 1. 2008 contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition with consequential benefits. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to re-consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation in light of the aforesaid observations. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. .;