Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Umakant Dwivedi v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 32128 of 2003 [2006] RD-AH 10929 (4 July 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.26

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.32128 of 2003

Umakant Dwivedi


     State of U.P. and others

Hon.Shishir Kumar, J.

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order-dated 30.6.2003 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) issued by the respondents' authorities regularizing the services of certain Seasonal Collection Amins. Further issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to correct the seniority list and further prayer for a direction to regularize the services of the petitioner.

The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that the petitioner who was initially given appointment as Seasonal Collection Amin on 16.1.1987.  A copy of the certificate showing the initial date of appointment has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition.  The petitioner submits that from that date the petitioner is continuously working as Seasonal Collection Amin but the seniority list, which was published on 28.3.2003, the initial engagement of the petitioner was shown as 1997 and the name of the petitioner was at serial No.37.  When the petitioner came to know regarding the aforesaid list, he immediately on 7.4.2003 filed a representation before the District Magistrate, Kannauj for correction of the seniority list stating therein that the initial engagement of the petitioner is of 1987.  Without correction of the seniority of the petitioner, again a seniority list was issued on 28.6.2003 in which the name of the petitioner finds placed at Serial No.35 and his date of initial appointment as mentioned in that list as 4.2.1999 and the total working of the petitioner was shown as 2576.  Petitioner submits that vide order dated 30th June, 2003 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) about nine persons have been regularized.  Persons mentioned at Serial Nos. 4 and 6 are admittedly junior to the petitioner but in the seniority list issued by the respondents they have wrongly been shown as senior.

The petitioner filed a representation raising the grievances, which have been stated in the present writ petition but the respondents have not paid any heed and they have not considered the representation of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court.

Initially the writ petition vide its order dated 21.3.2005 was dismissed but on Special Appeal No.507 of 2005 filed by the petitioner, the same was allowed vide its order dated 25.4.2005 and the writ petition was directed to be decided on merits.

It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that immediately after issuance of seniority list dated 28.3.2003, the petitioner raised an objection that his initial appointment is of 1987 and from that date the petitioner is continuously working as Seasonal Collection Amin and the placement of the petitioner in the seniority list has wrongly been done and the working date of the petitioner has also wrongly been stated.  In respect of the objection filed by the petitioner, nothing has been done by the respondents and vide order dated 28.6.2003, another seniority list was issued, though the initial appointment of the petitioner as Seasonal Collection Amin has been changed as 4.2.1999 instead of 1997 but the working days of the petitioner has been shown as 2576.  Petitioner submits that this clearly goes to show the apparent illegality committed on behalf of the respondents.  The further submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that admittedly from the record, it is clear that the respondents Nos.7 and 8 are junior to the petitioner but their services have been regularized, as such, the petitioner is also entitled for the same benefit.  

A counter affidavit has been filed.  In para 7 of the counter affidavit this fact has been admitted by the respondents that the initial appointment of the petitioner has been shown as 4.2.1989.  It has also been stated in the said paragraph that the seniority list has been prepared not on the basis of seniority but has been prepared as per direction given in Uttar Pradesh Collection Amins (Vth Amendment) Rules, 1992 on the basis of satisfactory work and conduct as well as at least 70% realization in the last four fasli.  Further it has been stated that the realization of petitioner in 1408-fazli was 3,54,544/- i.e. 101%.  In 1409 fazli (Rabi) the realization was 99% and subsequently 59%.  In spite of the aforesaid fact stated in paragraph 7, the respondents wanted to justify the order-dated 30.6.2003 by which certain persons have been regularized.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and have perused the record.

Admittedly, when the first seniority list was issued, the petitioner has filed an objection but without considering the objection of the petitioner another seniority list was issued and the date of appointment of the petitioner has been changed.  Even serial number has also been changed but the total working days 893 has been shown as 2576. The petitioner has filed the document showing therein that initial appointment of the petitioner is of 1987.  The respondents have not come before this Court with a case that annexure-1 filed with the writ petition, which has been issued by the Tehsildar, Kannauj is not a genuine document unless and until the respondents submits before this Court that this document is not genuine.  In case of non-rebuttal, the Court has to accept the said document regarding initial appointment and working of the petitioner.  From the perusal of Annexure 2 dated 31.1.1999, issued by the Sub-Divisional officer, Tirwa District- Kannauj clearly also goes to show that the petitioner is working up to 31.1.1999 but reasons best known to the respondents the services of the petitioner have not been regularized.  The action of the respondents cannot be appreciated as the petitioner immediately after issuance of the first seniority list, has submitted an objection dated 7.4.2003 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) but the respondents have not cared to consider and dispose of the representation informing the petitioner regarding placement of the seniority.  Subsequent seniority list changes the date of appointment and serial number of the petitioner.  After perusal of the record, it clearly goes to show that if this is accepted that the initial appointment of the petitioner is of 1987 as Seasonal Collection Amin then admittedly respondents Nos. 7 and 8 are junior to the petitioner but their services have been regularized by order dated 30.6.2003 and their names finds placed at Serial Nos. 4 and 6.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent No.3 that is District Magistrate, Kannauj is directed to consider the grievances of the petitioner regarding seniority and initial date of engagement as Seasonal Collection Amin and will also consider that whether any junior person to the petitioner appointed subsequently have been regularized.  If that is such, then legally the petitioner is also entitled for regularization if any junior person to the petitioner has been regularized.  It is provided that the petitioner will submit a detailed and comprehensive representation annexing all the documents which have already been filed by the petitioner along with the copy of the writ petition as well as the counter affidavit and the respondent No.3 District Magistrate, Kannauj will consider the said representation of the petitioner for regularization, if necessary, a personal opportunity of hearing be provided to the petitioner.  The respondent No.3 is further directed to pass appropriate and detailed order relating to consideration of regularization of the petitioner according to law and will pass a detailed and reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order as well as the supplementary representation.


With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.  




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.