HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL (Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting.) (Chapter VIII Rule 32 (2)(b) Description of the case. WP S/S No. 94 / 2006 Satish Singh Vs State of Uttaranchal Secretary Revenue Department Approved for reporting. ________________________ Not approved for reporting Date of decision 10.2.06 Initial of Judge 2 HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 94 (S/S) of 2006 With Stay Application No.911 of 2006 Satish Singh S/o Surendra Singh Presently working as Seasonal Collection Amin, In Tehsil- Totdwar, District- Pauri Garhwal. ....Petitioner Vs 1. State of Uttaranchal through Secretary Revenue Department, Dehradun. 2. District Magistrate, District- Pauri Garhwal. 3. Tehsildar, Tehsil Kotdwar, District- Pauri Garhwal. ..........Respondents. Sri Raman Kumar Shah learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Nand Prasad learned Standing counsel for the respondents. Dated:- 10.02.2006 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon J. Heard Sri Raman Kumar Shah learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nand Prasad learned Standing counsel for the State. Both the parties have agreed that the matter may be disposed of at the admission stage. By the present writ petitioner the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to Regularize the service of petitioner on the post of Collection Amin and pay his salary regularly and further prayed for the issue of writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus direction the respondents not to interfere in the working of the petitioner as Seasonal Collection Amin in Tehsil- Kotdwar District Pauri Garhwal. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition according to the petitioner are that he was appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin on 21-6-2004 in the Tehsil-Kotdwar, District- Pauri Garhwal and from time to time he was 3 appointed as Seasonal Collection Amin fro every season in Tehsil- Kotdwar, District- Pauri Garhwal. The service of the petitioner has been extended vide order dated 9-1-2006 passed by the District Magistrate, District- Pauri Garhwal. The petitioner is continuously working since July 1993 and has already worked more than 5 Fasili as a Collection Amin. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of U.P. Collection Amins Service Rule 1974 as amended from time to time the petitioner is entitled for regular selection for the post of collection Amin. The petitioner has referred the judgment of Champat Ram Vs. State of Uttaranchal in writ petition No. 3320 (S/S) of 2001 passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.C. Verma, which is quoted below:- “ By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus to command the opposite parties to appoint the petitioner as regular Collection Amin under 35% quota to be filled from amongst the Seasonal Collection Amins who have worked for more than four fasili and whose recovery is 70% of fixed target. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is Seasonal Collection Amin and in view of the circular issued by Board of Revenue he collected 70% of the demand, which were submitted, to him, therefore, he was entitled to be considered in view of the explanation appended to Rules, 1974 and as considered in the year 1992. If this fact is correct and the petitioner is eligible according to Rule, the opposite parties are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as regular Collection Amin under 35% quoto to be filed within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall be allowed to continue till his case for appointed as regular Collection Amin is considered and if work and post is available and in case the Commissioner has given sanction for appointment of the Seasonal Collection Amins. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally.” 4 In the case of Umarao Singh Rawat and others Vs. State of U.P. and others in writ Petition No. 9557 of 1997 passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Katju, it has held as under:- “ This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for mandamus directing the respondents no. 2 and 4 to regularize the service of the petitioners as collection peons, as the came may be. In this case, on 13-3-1997, this court granted learned standing counsel for four weeks time to file a counter affidavit but no counter affidavit has been filed, hence, the allegation in the petition are being treated as correct and the petition is being disposed off finally. The petitioner no.s 4 to 9 are seasonal collection Amins and the petitioners no. 10to 14 are Seasonal Collection peons in District Nainital since 1989 and onwards. The dates of their appointments have been given in para no. 3 of the writ petition. In para no. 4 of the petition, it is alleged that the work of seasonal collection amins and collection Amins is similar. In fact in the entire Tehsil Nainital there is only collection Amin and the rest of the work is being done by the petitioner no. 1 to 9 who are called seasonal collection Amins and the hare performing the samework as the collection Amins. In para no. 6 of the petition, it is alleged that the situation in the hills area is some what different from the plaints in U.P. prior to 1989 the land revenue in the hill areas was received through patwaris and in fact there were to post like that of collection Amins in the Hills. In 1989, the patwaris of the hills were on strike demanding higher wages as they have very wise functions to perform including police duties. In the hills of U.P the patwaris have been given police powers, as V.I.R can be made by them in certain case. In 1989, the decision was taken at the higher level and it was decided that the work of collection of land revenue will be performed by the collection Amins in the hills, hence, 1989 a large number of Seasonal Collection Amins were appointed and although the work taken from them is of a regular nature they are being called Seasonal Collection Amine. It is alleged in para no. 8 of the petition, that it was absolutely unjustified Amins since there was no difference in the nature of work being performed by the Seasonal Collection Amins and the regular collection Amins. Similarly, the Seasonal Collection 5 peons are also doing regular nature of work as they are assisting the seasonal collection Amins. The service conditions of the collections Amins are mentioned in the U,.P Collection Amins service Rules, 1974 by a notification dated 23-10-92 . Certain amendments more in these rules. The true copy of the notification is Annexure-3 to the petitions. By this amendments certain Seasonal Collection Amins can be appointed as Collection Amins . It they have worked for more then four seasons. The petitioners no. 1 to 7 have worked satisfactory for more than four seasons as stated in para no.22 of this petition. In para no. 24 it is stated that 50% posts of collection peons are to be filled from Seasonal Collection peons vide Annexure no. 5 to the petition. In para-33 it is stated that except for one single person there is no collection Amins in Tehsil Nainital, although there is need for many more. It appears that petition in the Hills is very difference from that in plains of U.P, the patwaris in the hills was revenue official, equivalent to Lekpal but his power were much wider since they included police powers. Hence the decision of this court relation to Seasonal Collection Amins unlike in the plainsts. Hence, there is nothing “Seasonal” about the work of Seasonal Collection Amins. In fact the District Magistrate, Nainital has been repeatedly writing to the higher authorized in this connection vide annexure no.1 and 3 to the writ petition. Similarly the Seasonal Collection peons are doing same work as regular collection peons. In view of the unrebutted allegations in the petition I am of the opinion that his petition deserves to be allowed. Since the petitioners have been performing the same work as of the regular collection Amins and regular collection peons. I direct that they shall be given the same salaries, allowances and other benefits and other facilities as regular collection Amins and collection peons, as the case may be on the Principle of equal pay for equal work. The stated Govt. is further directed to take a decision of recommendations of the District Magistrate, Nainital for certain of posts copies of which are annexure 1 and 2 of the writ petition expedititiously and till then the services of the petitioners shall be continued without any artificial break in service.” 6 Admittedly, the petitioner is working as Seasonal Collection Amin since July 1993 in the Tehsil Kotdwar, District- Pauri Garhwal. If the petitioner has completed 5 Fasili as a Seasonal Collection Amin, there is no reason not to consider him in view of the aforesaid judgment. Consequently, writ petition is disposed of direction the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the filing of the certified copy of the order. There will be no order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J) Dated:- 10-2-2006 M.K. 7