Nityanand vs State of U.P. and Others

Shishir Kumar, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

Petitioner, who was working on the post of Collection Amin. His services have been terminated on the ground that he was having less collection. Petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid order filed a writ petition before this Court and the interim order was granted and in pursuance of the interim order, petitioner is working on the post from that date. Petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment of this Court reported in 2008 (2) ESC 1338 (All) Virendra Singh v. Collector, Kanpur Dehat and Ors. Taking support of the aforesaid judgment, learned Counsel submits that the less collection does not come under the definition of misconduct, therefore, on that basis, the services of the petitioner cannot be terminated.

I have considered the submission and perused the record. Admittedly, petitioner is working from 1979. In 1993, he has been terminated and in pursuance of the interim order he is working. About 17 yeas have been passed, therefore, in my opinion there will be no fruitful purpose to disturb the petitioner. Further there is no occasion for taking a different view.

In such circumstances, the claim of the petitioner may be considered for regularization without taking into consideration the order impugned dated 20.11.1991.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

No order as to costs.