Abdul Moin, J. - (1.) C.M. Application No.49206 of 2018. Heard Sri Sanjay Sarin, learned Standing Counsel for the applicants and Sri Rama Kant Dixit, learned counsel representing the sole respondent. The appeal has been filed beyond time by 7 months and 22 days. As the delay has been satisfactorily explained, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Let the appeal be treated to be within time. Order on Special Appeal. Heard Sri Sanjay Sarin, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri Rama Kant Dixit, learned counsel representing the sole respondent.
(2.) The instant appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and order dated 3.8.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.4963 of 2015 In re: Rajendra Prasad Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and others by which the learned Single Judge has held the petitioner/respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) as entitled to similar benefits in view of the earlier judgment passed by this Court on 19.8.2014 in Writ Petition (S/S) No.4031 of 2001 In re: Pratap Narain Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others. Learned Single Judge also held that the petitioner would not be entitled to any salary for the past period, but would be entitled to continuity of service in terms of the order passed in Pratap Narain Pandey's case and would also be entitled to work till he attains the age of superannuation and thereafter shall be entitled to retiral benefits by granting benefit of service with effect from 5th June, 1986 till the age of superannuation, however, without any salary for the intervening period.
(3.) The case set forth before the learned Single Judge by the petitioner was that sometimes in the year 1986 applications were invited for the post of Collection Amin in District Sultanpur. The petitioner had applied and after the written examination he was declared passed and after physical test and interview a select list of 186 candidates was prepared in which the name of the petitioner found place at Serial No.179. However, instead of appointing the petitioner as Collection Amin, he was only allowed to work as Seasonal Collection Amin in 1986 and continued to work in the said capacity till the year 2000. The petitioner being aggrieved against not being permitted to work as a regular Collection Amin, filed Writ Petition (S/S) No.2354 of 2002 claiming regular appointment on the post of Collection Amin. Earlier, another selected candidate similar to the petitioner namely Pratap Narain Pandey had filed Writ Petition (S/S) No.10539 of 1990 claiming regular appointment wherein an interim order was passed requiring the appellants to consider the claim of Pratap Narain Pandey. However, the claim of Pratap Narain Pandey came to be rejected. Pratap Narain Pandey thereafter filed Writ Petition (S/S) No.4031 of 2001 challenging the order whereby his claim was rejected. The said writ petition was decided on 19.8.2006 by this Court allowing him to work as regular Collection Amin and treating him as regular Collection Amin since 5.6.1986. Likewise, other candidates also preferred writ petition claiming parity of the order passed in the case of Pratap Narain Pandey which was also allowed. A special leave petition also came to be filed against the orders passed by this Court but the same was also dismissed. In the meanwhile, the petitioner coming to know about the order dated 19.8.2006 moved an application in his earlier pending Writ Petition (S/S) No.2354 of 2002 claiming the benefit of the order dated 19.8.2006 and his writ petition was disposed of on 18th May, 2012 with a direction to the District Magistrate, Sultanpur to decide his representation in the light of the judgment of this Court dated 19.8.2006. Subsequent thereto, the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 27.8.2012 on various grounds. The said order was again challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No.6646 of 2012 which petition was disposed of on 19.8.2014 by this Court by which the State Government was directed to verify the petitioner's status in comparison to the facts of the Pratap Narayan Pandey's case and take a decision in his matter. Again the claim of the petitioner was considered but was rejected vide order dated 15.9.2014 passed by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur which was again challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No.4963 of 2015.;