Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20531 of 2010 Petitioner :- Rana Pratap Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Siddharth Khare,Sri. Ashok Khare Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C. Hon'ble Pradeep Kant,J.
Learned counsel for the State prays for and is granted three weeks further time
to file counter affidavit.
Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel has drawn attention of the Court to
the order passed by the District Magistrate, dated 30th September, 2009 by
means of which the claim of regularization of the petitioners no.1 to 39 on the
post of Collection Amin and that of the rest of the petitioners on the post of
Collection Peon has been rejected.
The ground for rejection for consideration of regularization as Collection
Amin under the Collection Amin Rules is that there is no vacancy under the
35% quota under the aforesaid Rule, therefore, no such regular appointment
can be made. In regard to the post of Collection Peon, the existence of
vacancies has not been denied but the sanction of the Commissioner is
awaited and, therefore, they have also been refused regularization.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were
also required to be considered for regularization under the 1979 Rules which
prayer stood rejected on the ground that they are not entitled for regularization
under the aforesaid rules though the petitioners were entitled for
regularization under the aforesaid Rules also. It is his further case that there is
no justification for the respondents for not allowing the petitioners to continue
function as they were functioning on 30th September 2009. The submission is
that this Court directed for considering their claim for regularization in
services, that the petitioners cannot be stopped from discharging their duties
even if they have not been regularized for any reason whatsoever.
So far the plea of the petitioners for considering their case under the Ad-hoc
Employee Regualrization Rules, 1979 is concerned, the matter can be
reconsidered after the counter affidavit is filed, but this Court does not find
prima facie any reason as to why the Commissioner should not accord
approval as has been mentioned in the order dated 30th September, 2009.
Admittedly, post/vacancies are there on which Collection Peons can be
regularized.
I am also prima facie of the view that there cannot be any ground for not
treating the petitioners in the manner as they were being treated before the
order passed on 30th September, 2009.
I therefore, provide, as an interim measure that the matter regarding grant of
approval shall be immediately considered by the Commissioner and if there is
no legal impediment it is expected that the approval shall be granted, in view
of the fact that large number of Collection Peons are working whose services
can be regularized under the aforesaid Rules. This exercise shall be completed
expeditiously, say, within a period of one month from the date of production
of certified copy of this order. After the grant of approval, the matter of
Collection Peons for regualrization shall be considered and appropriate orders
shall be passd.
It is futher provided that the petitioners shall be allowed to discharge thier
functions as they were being allowed to discharge prior to the order dated
30th September, 2009, subject to further order passed by the Court.
Order Date :- 13.8.2010
Bhaskar