ANARSI RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ratnesh Khare, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

(2.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.4.1999 passed by respondent No. 2, the Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Nigam, Varanasi, by which the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. A further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to pay salary and other benefits admissible to the post of a regular Driver with effect from the date the person junior to the petitioner has been promoted as Driver.

(3.) It is the specific case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Driver on daily wages on 30.6.1980 and vide order dated 7.1.1989 the petitioner as well as other daily wage employees were regularised as Class IV employees on the post of Lamp Lighter/Peon. The petitioner was placed at serial No. 3 in the list of employees who were regularised by the aforesaid order. The petitioner had been making representations to the contesting respondents for considering his claim for being promoted and paid salary on the post of driver, on which post he was actually working. It is contended that the work of driver was throughout being taken from the petitioner.