Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MUKUND BIHARI SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mukund Bihari Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 34830 of 1998 [2007] RD-AH 7790 (26 April 2007)

 

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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

Heard counsels for the parties and perused the record.

The case of the petitioner is that in compliance of letter dated 6.11.1979 inviting him to appear in the interview for selection on the post of Supervisor, he appeared in the interview held on 27.11.1979. He was appointed as Supervisor vide order dated 3.1.1980 in a Government approved School in Baharaich.  

As there was no post of Supervisor in the institution, in question, the petitioner was not being paid the salary for the post of Supervisor, as such, he moved a representation dated 17.3.1994 to the Director, Social Welfare Department for payment of his salary. Vide order dated 14.12.1994, theState Government changed the department of the petitioner on the ground that 23 projects of Social Welfare and all posts of probation cadre stood transferred from Social Welfare Department to Mahila and Bal Vikas Department. Since the petitioner was being placed in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 whereas he claims himself to be entitled for the pay scale of Rs.1600-2600, he moved representations, in this regard to the Secretary of Social Welfare Department, U.P., Lucknow and Director, Social Welfare at Lucknow- respondent nos. 1 and 2.  

It is submitted that when no orders were passed, the petitioner instituted Civil Misc. Writ No. 16438 of 1998 before this Court which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 13.5.1998 with the direction to the concerend authority to decide his representation within three months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order.

In compliance of the aforesaid direction, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected vide impugned order dated 18.2.1998.

Aggrieved by the rejection of this representation vide impugned order dated 18.2.1998, the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction by means of instant writ petition praying for the following reliefs :-

"A)      Issue a writ, order or direction  in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 18.7.98 passed by respondent no. 2 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition);

B)         Issue a writ, order or direction  in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay scale of Rs.16---2660 from 14.1.1994 which is promotional pay scale of Superintendent;

C)                 Issue a suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case

D)                  Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.

  Standing counsel contends  that as there was no post of Supervisor, the petitioner could not be granted any promotion.

From the perusal of record, it is evident that S/Sri Anand Singh Bhantu and Salim Siddique who are juniors to the petitioner and who were working as Supervisors, i.e., the same post as held by the petitioner, have been granted two promotions after completion of 14 and 24 years of their service. Therefore, the only contention of Standing counsel that there is no channel of promotion and no post of Supervisor was existing from which he can be granted promotion, is not acceptable. Since juniors of the petitioner have been granted two promotions, he is also entitled to the same benefit and has to be placed at least at par with his juniors.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed with the direction that the petitioner be granted two notional promotions w.e.f. 14.1.1990, i.e the date when his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits.  No order as to costs.

Dated 26.4.2007

kkb


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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