AVADH BIHARI DIXIT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JAGDISH Bhalla, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the validity of the cut off date i. e. 1st January, 1975 fixed by Section 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Collection Amins Service Rules, 1995.

(2.) THE petitioners were appointed on the post of Collection Amins in the erstwhile Sales Tax Department (now Trade Tax Department) by order dated 26-8-1974 passed by the Collector, Lucknow who was then the appointing authority of the petitioners under the Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974 which came into force with effect from 5-8-1974. THE appointment of the petitioners on the posts of Collection Amins in the said department was made after being selected by a duly constituted selection committee. THEreafter the petitioners continued to work on their respective posts of Collection Amins in the said department for about 21 years i. e. till 6-8-1995 when they were transferred from the Trade Tax Department to different tehsils of Lucknow district by the District Magistrate, Lucknow by the impugned order, contained in Annexure 11 to the writ petition. Meanwhile, in September, 1984 a list of temporary Collection Amins working in the Revenue Department was published wherein the names of the Collection Amins including the petitioners, working in the Sales Tax Department were not included. At that time since the service rules for the Collection Amins of the Sales Tax Department were not framed, their services were governed by the Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974. THE petitioners made representations for their regularization and confirmation in the service but no orders were passed on their representations. THEreafter they filed Writ Petition No. 5492 of 1986 praying for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to include their names in the seniority list of confirmed Collection Amins. This writ petition was allowed by this Court by order dated 12-9-1991 which is quoted below : - "a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to include the names of the petitioners in the seniority list of Collection Amins and to regularize and confirm them on the posts from the date juniors to them have been regularized and confirmed. THE petitioners would be entitled to the consequential benefits. "

(3.) HE has also placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Lucknow University Retired Teachers Association v. State of U. P. and others, Writ Petition No. 10107 of 1989, herein a cut off date of retirement, i. e. 1st January, 1984, was fixed for the purposes of extending the benefits of pension etc. The Division Bench while allowing the writ petition held as under : "the State Government discriminated the petitioners by ordering benefit, for teachers of Degree Colleges and ignoring the University Teachers though they were also entitled for the same benefit. There was no justification for not considering the case of retired teachers of the University while considering the similar question in regard to the teachers of the Degree Colleges. We, therefore, allow the writ petitions and hold that the fixing of the date 1-1-84 in GO dated 24-12- 1983, Annexure 7 to the supplementary affidavit, is discriminatory and arbitrary and that part of the GO is thus struck down and the opposite parties are directed to give benefit of the pension scheme to all retired teachers of the Universities irrespective of date of their retirement as is available to the Teachers of the Degree Colleges. "