RESERVED JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION 227/2005 (Under Section 482 of the CrPC) Bilal Ahmad & 10 Others …….Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal ……Respondent Mr. SPS Panwar, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. HC Pathak, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, Brief Holder, for the State/respondent. 19th July, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. All these petitioners are the Seasonal Amins working in District Haridwar. Apropos the orders of the High Court dated 14.8.2002, their services were terminated by the Collector, Haridwar on 7.11.2003. But in compliance of the order of termination of 23 Seasonal Amins, 12 out of them handed over their revenue records (Bastas) to the office of the Collector, but these 11 petitioners did not. So finding no other way, the order was issued to lodge an FIR against these delinquents. It was lodged on 3.6.2004 in Police Station Kotwali Roorkee and after investigation, police submitted chargesheet against all of them dated 31.8.2004, wherein it was prima facie found proved that in compliance of the order of the Collector, they did not hand over the charge or their Basta (revenue record) to the office of the Collector and continued to recover the revenue from the subjects. 2. It is pertinent to mention that one Mr. Dinesh Kumar, who is not the petitioner presently, along with other likewise Seasonal Amins contested a separate litigation to the level of High Court for regularization of their services. They also did not hand over their Bastas (revenue record) after 2 cessation and continued as Seasonal Amins. It was found to be a serious misconduct, for which an FIR has already been lodged against them. They were further directed in the following words by the High Court, Uttarakhand on 14.8.2002: “Those Collection Amins who are working under the High Court orders shall be ceased to work, if there is no sanction of the Commissioner and no work is available. The applicants shall submit the “Bastas” (Government Record) to the office of District Magistrate, Haridwar within 24 hours failing which they shall be taken into custody and shall be kept in Jail for ten days.” 3. In the light of the orders of this High Court (though made in a separate contempt petition no. 267/2001 filed by Dinesh Kumar and Others against the District Collector of District Pithoragarh), Collector of Haridwar ceased the services of these 11 petitioners also, who pretended to have been working as Seasonal Amins under the garb of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court’s order dated 11.6.1992 and thereafter on 6.5.1993. 4. When the order of Collector was passed terminating the services of these petitioners, they all rushed up to the High Court of Uttarakhad by filing a writ petition no. 1433 (S/S) of 2003, wherein the Single Judge of this Court passed the following order: “………respondents are directed to formulate the scheme to take work regularly from the Seasonal Collection Amins under the Constitutional mandate as contained in Article 31 and 39(a) of the Constitution of India so as not to deprive their regular bread and butter.” 5. As is manifest from the operative portion of the aforesaid order dated 12.12.2003, it is clear that this order does not render the protection to the petitioners in the form of 3 continuity of their services. The State Government has only been directed to formulate the scheme to take the work regularly from the Seasonal Collection Amins. To take work regularly does not imply to keep them espoused for round the year because it is against the very spirit of the word “Seasonal”. Seasonal Collections Amin imbibes the spirit of collecting the revenue by these Amins seasonally when the work of collection grows as per circumstances existing in the area and that is why a separate provision has been incorporated in the Rules known as Uttar Pradesh Collection Amin Services Rules, 1974. These Seasonal Collection Amins cannot be picked up from the streets or from wandering persons from the roadside. As per Rules, they have to be appointed from the Collection Peons occupying the permanent post as per Rule 5 and 17(Ka) of the said Rules. 6. Admittedly, this is not the case of the petitioners that all those were the Collection Peons in the Revenue department occupying the permanent post. From where they were recruited as the Seasonal Collection Amins, has not been disclosed by them ever. However, their validity or invalidity of the recruitment is not the subject matter of this writ petition to be adjudicated upon, but the fact remains that these were Seasonal Collection Amins, whose services were terminated by the order of the Collector dated 7.11.2003 in reference to the orders of the High Court, though made in a similar case no. 267/2001 (supra), but they did not render their Bastas (revenue record) to the office of the Collector and continued to collect the revenue from the area illegally. 7. However, the Divisional Commissioner by his order dated 3.6.2004 and thereafter the Collector by his order dated 8.6.2004 made a fresh renewed appointment of these Collection Amins w.e.f. 1.4.2004 to 30.9.2004. But making 4 this order of renewal, appointing them afresh cannot legalize the wrong of not submitting their Bastas by these petitioners since 7.11.2003 to 1.4.2004 and even after up to 8.6.2004, when the order of Collector was made because at the most it can be said that they were reappointed on 8.6.2004. So this way, since 8.6.2004, they were entitled to act as a Seasonal Amin up to 30.9.2004, but there is entirely illegality on the part of these petitioners since 7.11.2003 to 8.6.2004 and no order of the Collector or Commissioner can legalize the illegality which has been done by them by an order of appointment w.e.f. 1.4.2004 to 30.9.2004. This is in fact an evil velour on the part of these 11 petitioners to remain forcibly and unauthorizedly in the employment of the State Government de horing all rules and orders of the Collector and even of the High Court. In other words, they usurped the Government job in an entirely illegal manner that too in a forcible demeanor. The same cannot be encouraged by the Court. 8. They claim that they are still continuing their office even after 30.9.2004. If it is so, then it is utterly an evil courage on the part of these petitioners and the same deserves to be dealt with severely. 9. In view of the above, this petition is bereft of any merit. The petition is dismissed. The lower court record, if any, be sent back forthwith so that the already belated criminal proceedings against these petitioners may not be further delayed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 19.7.2011 Prabodh