RAJA RAM VISHWAKARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.8.1990 (Annexure- 4) to the writ petition terminating the services of the petitioner. Heard Sri H. S. N. Tripathi, earned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The brief I'acts necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the 'Taqabi Amin' in the department of Agriculture an the basis of selection on 29.3.1971. subsequently his services were retrenched from August, 1975. A notification dated 27.6.1978 was also Issued for absorbing the retrenched Taqabi Amins' of the department in revenue department. The petitioner continued as seasonal collection amin in tehsil 'Nagaurth, district Siddharth Nagar (old district Basti) but the service of the petitioner was regulated by the Uttar Pradesh Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974. as amended from time to time. On 13.4.1990 the service of the petitioner was terminated on the ground that revenue collection was low and he was to make up to the parameter of collection by 15.8.1990, on the basis of report of tehsildar dated 13.8.1990 (Annexure-4) to the writ petition. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed writ petition and this Court has been pleased to stay the termination order, however, the petitioner was not taken to the job. Subsequently, he has filed writ petition which has been dismissed. Petitioner has contended that the impugned order dated 13.8.1990 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate without holding any inquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in derogation to the provision of Articles 14 and 16 and Article 311 of the Constitution of India, the service of the petitioner being the seasonal collection amin cannot be dismissed in violation of principle of natural justice.

(3.) In Dinesh Kumar Asthana v. Collector, Azamgarh/ Deputy Collector, TahstI Phulpur, district Azamgarh and Ors.. 2001 (1) AWC 785, it was held in para 8 : "Necessary pleadings on this aspect are wanting. Even the counter-affidavit does not disclose that no person in the list prepared in the year 1993 has been regularised whose recovery was below the prescribed limit or that all the persons above such regularised persons were inefficient and/or had poor efficiency on comparison. This Court has no means to find out whether the recovery in a particular year with respect to the petitioner was low for reason other than his own efficiency. It is very relevant circumstance while considering efficiency of Seasonal Collection Amin. For example, recovery is not possible beyond a certain limit for various factors and reasons like orders from Court the total extent of recovery to be made in one's area and/or whether Government Itself kept recovery in abeyance due to famine, flood, drought, etc. These will be relevant consideration to be taken into account and a Seasonal Collection Amin, being put to sufferance for reasons beyond his control, cannot be non-suited for low recovery as it does not reflect at all upon his efficiency.