GANGA CHARAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEVI Prasad Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, I proceed to decide the writ petition finally at the admission stage. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the impugned order dated 30. 1. 2008 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) by which claim of the petitioner for regularisation has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner's total recovery was 69. 54%, which is less than the required percentage, i. e. 70%. The petitioner, who is a collection peon, has been discharging duty since 1993. The petitioner claims regularisation on the basis of satisfactory service of last four fasli years.

(2.) ACCORDING to U. P. Collection Peon Service Rules, 2004 (in short 'rules'), it is not mandatory for the peon to establish that he recovered the dues to the tune of 70%. The duty of the collection peon is to assist the Collection Amin to recover the dues. Though under the relevant rules with regard to Collection Amin the criterion for recover of 70% dues has been provided, but under the Service Rules of collection peon, no such criterion has been provided. Assisting peon ordinarily does not seem to be responsible for the lapse of recovery on the part of the Collection Amin unless the conduct of such peon is deprecated along with some material. There appears to be no material on record which may indicate that the petitioner's conduct and work were not satisfactory while performing duty. While rejecting the claim of the petitioner the only ground relied upon by the competent authority is that the average collection was 69. 54%, i. e. , less than 70%. No finding has been recorded while passing the impugned order relating to petitioner's work and conduct except the fact that total recovery was less than 70%. However, it has been observed in the impugned order that the satisfactory work means, more than 70% of recovery in last four fasli years. The observation made by the district authority seems to be misconceived. Under Rule 5 of the Rules, the 'satisfactory work' has been defined in the explanation clause, providing that the peon should have extended full cooperation for the 70% realization of dues. For convenience, Rule 5 of the Rules is reproduced as under : "5. Source of recruitment.- Recruitment to the posts in the service shall be made from the following sources : (i) Fifty per cent by direct recruitment through the selection committee. (ii) Fifty per cent posts shall be filled through the selection committee from amongst such seasonal collection peons who have worked satisfactorily for at least four fasals and whose age on the first day of July of the year in which selection is made does not exceed 45 years : Provided that if suitable candidates are not available, the remaining vacancies shall be filled by direct recruitment under Clause (i ). Explanation.- Satisfactory work shall mean extending full cooperation in at least seventy per cent realization as per prescribed standard fixed by the Government during the last four fasals and good conduct throughout. "

(3.) FROM the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the District Magistrate, Hamirpur held the petitioner responsible for deficiency of recovery, which is 69. 54%. However, he has not recorded any finding that because of petitioner's non-cooperative attitude or because of some complaint sent by the Collection Amin against the petitioner or for any dereliction in duty the recovery was less than 70%. In the absence of such material the collection peon ordinarily should not be held responsible for any shortfall in recovery of dues. The District Magistrate, Hamirpur failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.