HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 11889 of 2023 Court No. - 52 HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.3.2023 passed by respondent no.3 vide which services of the petitioner has been terminated and a further prayer to direct the respondents to pay proper salary to the petitioner from time to time. Placing the brief facts of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was continuously working in the respondents department since 24.3.1995 but the respondents have not considered to pay regular pay scale and other benefits to the petitioner and monthly salary in accordance with law. The services of the petitioner were regularized on 13.5.2003 but he was not paid regular salary and he received only Rs.7206/- per month, while respondent departments were paying Rs.33000/- to other collection Amins. It appears that the department treating the petitioner to be collection Amin on commission basis, gave notices to him to complete the target, so that payment may be made to him. Due to illness of his daughter, the petitioner could not do his job properly and was not in a position to achieve the target, however, as decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, an Amin appointed on commission basis was also entitled for the similar salary as that of Amins appointed on salary basis. The aforesaid observations have been made by the Hon'ble Apex Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjay Singh Sengar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Ram Krishan .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Court in the judgment as passed in State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Chandra Prakash Pandey & Ors. reported in (2001) 4 SCC 78. In the aforesaid judgment such Amins have also been considered to be Government Servant, therefore, a regular departmental inquiry was required to be made prior to passing the order impugned. The petitioner did not receive the notices as sent by the department as he was busy in the treatment of his daughter, therefore, could not submit his reply. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is settled law that in case the reply is not submitted by the concerned person, it cannot be taken as acceptance of the allegations as made in the notice against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has already mentioned in paragraph no.9 of the petition about the illness of his daughter because of which he could not receive the notice and submit a reply. Even otherwise, in view of the observations made in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Chandra Prakash Pandey & Ors. (supra), the petitioner is entitled for a salary as that of an Amin who is appointed on salary basis. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents opposing the submissions as made by learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although, the petitioner was appointed as salaried Cooperative Kurk Amin in the pay scale of 3050-75-3950-80-4950 and was getting the salary as per the rules but the petitioner demanded leave for a total of 484 days due to which the petitioner could not achieve the target as required, therefore, was given notice, to which he did not submit a reply. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, however, submits that the petitioner should have been given proper opportunity to place his personal difficulty before the authorities concerned prior to passing of the order impugned. This Court feels that the petitioner is entitled for the salary as that of Amins' appointed on salary basis as has been observed by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Chandra Prakash Pandey & Ors. (supra). Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.3.2023 is set-aside. The matter is remanded back to respondent no.2-Assistant Commissioner/Assistant Registrar Cooperative Hamirpur for decision afresh, ignoring the delay, if any, on merits, strictly in accordance with law as well as keeping in mind the observations as made in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Chandra Prakash Pandey & Ors. (supra), by means of WRIA No. 11889 of 2023 2 reasoned and speaking order, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. The present writ petition is allowed subject to the observations made above. The petitioner is present before this Court and seeing his condition, the aforesaid order has been passed giving sympathetic consideration, therefore, the same will not be taken as a precedent. October 14, 2025 Kalp Nath Singh WRIA No. 11889 of 2023 3 (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- KALP NATH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad