HRIDESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four appellants before the Court were appointed as Seasonal Collection Peons on 7 June 1993, 15 January 1994, 11 June 1993 and 11 June 1993 respectively. In 2004, the State Government notified the Uttar Pradesh Collection Peon's Service Rules, 20041. Under the Rules, 50% posts of the Collection Peons were to be filled in by appointment from amongst Seasonal Collection Peons who had satisfactorily worked for a period of four fasals and were less than 45 years of age, after the recommendation of the Selection Committee.

(2.) Initially, an order was passed on 19 December 2005 by the District Magistrate, Farrukhabad granting regular appointment to eight persons including the four appellants. A writ petition was filed before this Court (Writ Petition No. 4880 of 2006) challenging the appointment which was granted to the eight persons by the order dated 19 December 2005. During the pendency of the writ petition, an interim order was passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 25 January 2006 to the effect that till the next date of listing, selected candidates shall not be permitted to join and if they have already joined, they shall not be paid their salary without leave of the Court. Certain candidates who belonged to the OBC category had wrongly been treated as scheduled caste candidates. The writ petition was allowed and the order dated 19 December 2005 was quashed and set aside, in the following terms:

(3.) In pursuance of the order of the learned Single Judge, the District Magistrate passed an order dated 15 June 2010 terminating the services of the eight persons who had been granted regular appointment. After a fresh exercise was carried out, the appellants filed a fresh writ petition (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60047 of 2010). That writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge by an order dated 5 July 2011. The learned Single Judge observed that once 50% posts were required to be filled up from amongst Seasonal Collection Peons and sixteen posts were still lying vacant, the Collector would have to undertake a fresh exercise for filling of those posts in accordance with the Rules of 2004. In pursuance thereof, it is not in dispute that all the appellants were regularized on 13 March 2012. The appellants filed a writ petition being (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 63049 of 2011) seeking payment of their salary for a period of two years eight months and fourteen days between 1 October 2007 and 15 June 2010. It was their case in paragraphs 28 and 29 of the writ petition that: