# Jagmal Singh v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2009) 2 ILRA 643
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-05-08
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7149 of 2009
- **Bench:** Sunil Ambwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jagmal-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41398
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Rules 2002-Rule 29- Revision- petitioner
continuously
worked
as
Cooperative
Kurk Amin for 16 years 17 days on
substantive post -thereafter worked as
junior clerk (collection) at Tehsil level
retired on 31.10.06 after completing 31
years 87 days service. Denial of pension
on ground of working as junior clerkwhich is not a post of Amin of other
employee of concerned category-held
illegal petitioner worked throughout on
substantive
post
as
government
employee -entitled to club -entire service
period for purpose of retirement dues
and pension.

Held: Para 10:

The issue, as to whether a Cooperative
Kurk Amin is a government servant
holding a civil post, is thus no longer
resintegra. This court and Apex Court
have held that the cooperative Kurk
Amins are government servants. The
petitioner,
appointed
as
Cooperative
Kurk Amin of the collectorate on the
regular pay scale on 28.7.1975; working
continuously thereafter in the capacities
of the Sahkari Kurk Amins, and Junior
Clerk,
continued

to
serve
as
a
government
servant
throughout
on
regular basis from the date of his initial
appointment on 28.7.1975 to the date he
attained superannuation and retired at
the age of 60 years as a member of
service of whose service conditions are
regulated by the rules of 2002. He is
thus entitled to club his entire services
together for the purposes of retirement
dues and pension.
Case law discussed:
7326 (S/S) of 2004, (2001) 4 SCC 78, (1983) 2
SCC 33, 047, AIR 1970 MP 74.

## Text

2 All] Jagmal Singh V. State of U.P. and others
643
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.05.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNIL AMBWANI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7149 of 2009

Jagmal Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.B. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Pankaj Rai
S.C.

U.P. Cooperative Collection Funds and
Amin and Others Employees Service
Rules 2002-Rule 29- Revision- petitioner
continuously
worked
as
Cooperative
Kurk Amin for 16 years 17 days on
substantive post -thereafter worked as
junior clerk (collection) at Tehsil level
retired on 31.10.06 after completing 31
years 87 days service. Denial of pension
on ground of working as junior clerkwhich is not a post of Amin of other
employee of concerned category-held
illegal petitioner worked throughout on
substantive
post
as
government
employee -entitled to club -entire service
period for purpose of retirement dues
and pension.

Held: Para 10:

The issue, as to whether a Cooperative
Kurk Amin is a government servant
holding a civil post, is thus no longer
resintegra. This court and Apex Court
have held that the cooperative Kurk
Amins are government servants. The
petitioner,
appointed
as
Cooperative
Kurk Amin of the collectorate on the
regular pay scale on 28.7.1975; working
continuously thereafter in the capacities
of the Sahkari Kurk Amins, and Junior
Clerk,
continued

to
serve
as
a
government
servant
throughout
on
regular basis from the date of his initial
appointment on 28.7.1975 to the date he
attained superannuation and retired at
the age of 60 years as a member of
service of whose service conditions are
regulated by the rules of 2002. He is
thus entitled to club his entire services
together for the purposes of retirement
dues and pension.
Case law discussed:
7326 (S/S) of 2004, (2001) 4 SCC 78, (1983) 2
SCC 33, 047, AIR 1970 MP 74.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani , J.)

1. Heard Shri K.B. Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned
standing counsel appears for the
respondents. With the consent of parties
the writ petition was finally heard on
2.4.2009

2. The petitioner was appointed as
Sahkari Cooperative Kurk Amin on
28.7.1975 in the play scale of Rs.200-320
for realization of outstanding dues of
cooperative societies. On 28.2.1984 the
District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative
Societies U.P. Muzaffarnagar appointed
him on the post of Sahkari Kurk Amin at
Tehsil level in the office of Additional
District
Cooperative
Officer,
Sadar,
Muzaffarnagar in the pay scale of Rs.
354-550. Subsequently by an order dated
29.11.1990 issued by the Additional
Registrar
(Banking)
Cooperative
Societies. U.P. Lucknow, the Deputy
Registrar, Merrut was directed to appoint
the petitioner as Junior Clerk from the
post of Kosthak Lipik/Sahkari Kurk Amin
and accordingly the Deputy Registrar,
Cooperative
Societies,
U.P.
Merrut
Region, Merrut directed the District
Assistant
Registrar,
Cooperative
Societies, U.P. Haridwar to appoint the
644 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
petitioner on the post of Junior Clerk in
the newly created district Haridwar in the
pay scale of Rs. 950-1500.

3. The petitioner continued to work
on substantive post of Cooperative Kurk
Amin without any break for 16 years and
17 days and thereafter as Junior Clerk
(Collections)
at
Tehsil
level
w.e.f.
21.8.1991
and
superannuated
on
31.10.2006 at the age of 60 years after
completing 31 years and 87 days of
service
in
regular
pay
scale.
The
petitioner however has not been held
entitled to payment of pension inspite of
the fact that the District Assistant
Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P.
Muzaffarnagar
has
made
a
recommendation for grant of pension on
the ground that the facilities of pension
are provided to the Cooperative Kurk
Amin
under
the
U.P.
Cooperative
Collections Fund and Amin and other
Employees Service Rules 2002 (in short
the Rules of 2002) and that in similar
cases the Cooperative Kurk Amin have
been provided with the right to receive
pension.

4. Learned Standing counsel has
sought instructions in the matter and
informs the Court that the District
Magistrate had sought opinion of D.G.C.
(Civil), Muzaffarnagar and was advised
that since the petitioner was appointed by
the District Magistrate as a salaried Amin
and thereafter as Cooperative KurkAmin
at Tehsil level and was serving as a Junior
Clerk at the time of retirement, the period
of his service as Cooperative Kurk Amins
should be added for the purposes of award
of
pension.
The
Treasury
Officer,
Muzaffarnagar has opined on 31.7.2007
that under Rule 29 of Rules of 2002,
pension, gratuity and other retiral dues
are provided to be paid to amins and his
other companions and the employees of
the concerned categories. It would be
appropriate to treat the petitioner eligible
for pension under Rule 29 of the Rules of
2002. The matter is still pending
consideration in the State Government.

5. In the counter affidavit of Shri
Mohd.
Kaleem,
Additional
District
Cooperative Officer, Muzaffarnagar, it is
stated that the petitioner retired on
31.10.2006 as Junior Clerk of which the
appointing
authority
is
the
District
Assistant Registrar. His service were not
regulated by the Rules of 2002, as he was
not an Amin or Associate Amin under
Rule 29 of the Rules of 2002 and is thus
not entitled to pension.

6. In Chandra Prakash Pandey
and others vs. State of UP and others,
Writ Petition No. 7326 (S/S) of 2004 this
Court had held in its judgment dated
25.11.2008, that the Kurk Amins are to be
treated as government servants and were
entitled to all the benefits which are
applicable
to
Government
servants
including pension. Earlier Shri Chandra
Prakash Pandey and others filed a Writ
Petition No. 199 of 1991 claiming
declaration that they were government
servants. The Court held in its judgment
dated 26.4.1993, that the Kurk Amins are
entitled to be treated as government
servants. They were also entitled to
regular pay scale and other allowance.
The Special Appeals No. 15 (S/B) of 1994
and 39 (S/B) of 1994 were filed by the
State of UP as well as petitioners. All
those appeals were heard and by a
judgment dated 5.5.1995 the Special
Appeals filed by the State of U. P. was
dismissed and the Special Appeals filed
by the petitioners were allowed directing
2 All] Jagmal Singh V. State of U.P. and others
645
concerned authorities to decide the case of
the petitioners in the light of observations
made I the judgment and to pass
appropriate orders on the representations
and to take steps for implement the
decision. In paragraph-23 of the judgment
it was held that the petitioners working as
Kurk Amins were holding civil posts and
were government servant and therefore
their pay should be regulated by the
existing pay scale . It was however held
that it is not for the Court to decide as to
what pay scale should be made applicable
to the petitioners and therefore for that
purpose the Court held that the proper
authority will decide about the pay scales,
arrears and other things related to the
petitioner's
claims.
Pursuant
to
the
judgment
the
District
Magistrate,
Faizabad had appointed petitioners in
that writ petition as government servants
on 23.10.2001 and that under the Rules of
2002 the petitioners were granted pay
scale of Rs. 3050-3950. The judgments
were confirmed by the Apex Court
holding
that
the
petitioners
are
government servants.

7. In this case the petitioner was
appointed as Cooperative Kurk Amin on
regular salary basis in the in the pay scale
of Rs.200-320 on 28.7.1975. He was
thereafter appointed as Cooperative Kurk
Amin on salary basis at Tehsil level on
28.2.1984, and thereafter as Collection
Clerk on 29.11.1990. The petitioner was
thereafter appointed as Junior Clerk in the
regular pay scale of Rs.950-1500 by the
District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative
Societies, U.P. Haridwar on 5.12.1990 in
pursuance on the letters of the Registrar,
Cooperative
Societies,
U.P.
dated
December 5, 1990 and the Deputy
Registrar, Cooperative Societies U.P.
Merrut Region, Merrut dated August 3,
1991.

8. The Cooperative Kurk Amins are
engaged for realization of government
dues. They discharges same functions and
duties as regularly appointed collection
Amins in the revenue department of state.

9. In State of U.P. & Ors vs.
Chandra Prakash Pandey & Ors.
(2001) 4 SCC 78, arising out of the
Division Bench judgment of this Court
referred to above, the Supreme Court held
that the Kurk Amins Appointed on
commission
basis
for
recovery
of
outstanding dues of the Cooperative
Societies were members of service and
government servant on the ground that
Cooperative Kurk Amins were appointed
by the Collectors and were being paid out
of the cost recovered according to the
provisions for the recovery of land
revenue, and were also given the revised
pay scale. They were performing the
same duties and responsibilities as Kurk
Amins of other department on salary
basis. They enjoy and exercise the power
to arrest a person, who is a defaulter, can
attach his property, which he can put to
auction, like his counter part on regular
basis. A Kurk Amin on commission basis
and on regular basis similarly follows the
provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1951 and U.P.
Land revenue act, 1901 in so far as the
recovery of land revenue is concerned.
Once the District Magistrate issues a
recovery citation, both the sets of Kurk
Amins in order to execute the recovery
follow the same procedure and exercise
the powers and they are under the control
of one and same authority. Both work in
the same capacity under control of the
State Government and their appointments
646 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
and duties fully comply with the tests laid
down by the Supreme Court in the
decision of State of Gugarat vs. Raman
Lal Keshav Lal Soni (1983) SCC 33 in
which a Constitution Bench held that the
panchayat
service
constituted
under
Section 203 of the Gujarat Panchayats
Acts, 1962 was a civil service of the State
and the members of the service were
government servants. It was found that
the right of appointment; the right to
terminate the employment; the right to
take other disciplinary action; the right to
prescribe conditions of service; the nature
of duties performed by the employees; the
right to control the employees; manner
and
method
of
work;
for
issuing
directions and the right to determine the
source from which wages or salary are
paid and a host of such circumstances,
have to be considered to determine the
exigency of the relationship of master and
servant.

10. The issue, as to whether a
Cooperative Kurk Amin is a government
servant holding a civil post, is thus no
longer res-integra. This court and Apex
Court have held that the Cooperative
Kurk Amins are government servants.
The petitioner, appointed as Copperative
Kurk Amin of the collectorate on the
regular pay scale on 28.7.1975; working
continuously thereafter in the capacities
of the Sahkari Kurk Amins, and Junior
Clerk , continued to serve as a
government servant throughout on regular
basis from the date of his initial
appointment on 28.7.1975 to the date he
attained superannuation and retired at the
age of 60 years as a member of service of
whose service conditions are regulated by
the Rules of 2002. He is thus entitled to
club his entire services together for the
purposes of retirement dues and pension.
11. The writ petition is allowed with
directions to respondents to allow the
petitioner to complete the pension papers
and thereafter to sanction the pension,
gratuity,
leave
encashment,
group
insurance and all over service retiral
benefits which are due to a government
servant. The petitioner has retired has
retired on 31.10.2006. The delay in award
of pension cannot be attributed to him at
all.

12. The petitioner as such is also
entitled and shall be paid 8 % interest per
annum on the delayed payment of the
retiral dues and the arrears of pension. If
the petitioner completes and submits all
the documents within one month, the
respondents shall settle and sanction the
pension papers both for payment of
pension and retiral dues within next three
months.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.05.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16767 of 2001

Shiv Mangal Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Faujdar Rai,
Sri Ram Swaroop Singh
Sri C.K. Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Siya Ram Sahu
Sri V.K. Singh
S.C.