VIJAI NARAIN TIWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Dan Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Monika Sahai, learned brief holder of learned standing counsel for the respondents-State. The petitioner herein is a Seasonal Collection Amin since the year 1985. The contention is that the persons junior to him were considered and their services were regularised under Rule 5 of the Ser vices of U.P. Collection Amin Rules, 1974 way back in the year 2006, but, his claim was rejected vide order dated 7.7.2006 on the ground that his recovery was less than 70%. Being aggrieved the petitioner challenged the said order before this Court by means of Writ-A No. 69383 of 2006, which was allowed on 21.2.2013 and the order dated 7.7.2006 was quashed with the observation that if the recovery chart belonging to the petitioner did not indicate the recovery made by him in respect of one out of four relevant Faslis, then it was the fault of the respondents-officials and not of the petitioner, for which he could not be made to suffer. Accordingly, the matter was remanded back for consideration afresh. Pursuant to the aforesaid, the case of the petitioner was reconsidered and it was found that he fulfilled the eligibility condition of 70% or more recovery in the last four Faslis and was found fit for regularisation as per the Rules of 1974, however as by that time, he had become over-age having crossed the maximum age limit of 45 years prescribed under Rule 5 of the Rules, 1974, therefore, his matter was referred to the State Government for relaxation under Rules by means of the impugned order dated 18.4.2013.

(2.) It is this order, which has been challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the right of the petitioner for consideration had crystallized on the date, when the person junior to him had been considered and their services were regularised, while his case was arbitrarily rejected vide order dated 7.7.2006, therefore, the question of the petitioner becoming over-age does not arise and the respondents have erred in referring the matter to the State Government for relaxation. The petitioner claims entitlement to be considered for regularisation on the basis of his right as accrued in the year 2006, when he was well within the maximum age limit of 45 years, i.e. he was only 43 years of age.

(3.) The learned brief holder for the State submits that the matter pertaining to the petitioner has not been rejected rather he has been found fit for regularisation subject to relaxation to be granted, if at all, by the State Government and accordingly, the matter has been referred to the State Government for such relaxation regarding age as per Rules, therefore, no cause of action has arisen to the petitioner to approach this Court. She also states that the State Government may be directed to take an appropriate decision in the matter pending before it.