KAMALA PRASAD PANDEY Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Smt. Durga Tiwari learned counsel for the petitioner at length and Sri K.N. Misra for the respondent Bank.

(2.) The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that he has been illegally denied his benefits to which he was entitled after reinstatement. The submission in essence is that after the petitioner was reinstated under the order dated 12th July, 1996 the petitioner was entitled to all financial benefits except those benefits of which the petitioner was deprived of under the said order. Learned counsel contends that after the reinstatement of the petitioner he has not been given any increments.

(3.) The submission advances on the strength that once the petitioner has been reinstated the increments were admissible as the petitioner retired in the year 2006. Having not received the said financial benefits the petitioner has moved a representation for consideration and ultimately? the petitioner approached this Court in the year 2006 by filing a Writ Petition No. 16024 of 2006 which was disposed of with a direction that the authority may dispose of the representation of the petitioner. The said representation has been rejected by the order dated 5th July, 2006.