ASHEESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) U. K. Dhaon, J. Heard Sri Sanjeev Shankhdhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajit Kumar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the op posite parties 2 and 3.

(2.) THE petitioners in the instant writ petition initially prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature oimandamus command ing the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioners in the scale of Rs. 1,600- 2,600 w. e. f. 16-11-1993, i. e. the date since when the petitioners are continuously working as Research Assistant and to make pay ment of arrears regarding difference of pay with all consequential benefits.

(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that they are working continuously as Research Assis tant with effect from 16-11-1993 and as such they are entitled for their seniority and fixation of pay from 16-11-1993. He further submits that the services of the petitioners have been regularised with af fect from 20-3-1997 as per the order dated 3-12-1997 and the opposite parties are not considering the earlier services of the petitioners for the purposes of seniority although there is no dispute that the petitioners were working from 16-11-1993. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the apex Court reported in 1999 (9) Supreme 321; 2000 (1) LBESR 380 (SC), Ajit Kumar Ratha \. State oforissa and 1999 (8) Supreme 579, S. L. Chandrakishore Singh v. State of Manipur.