PREM CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. Since affidavits have been exchanged, with the consent of the parties' counsel, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at admission stage.

(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India claiming salary of the higher post of A.R.T.O on the ground that he has officiated on the said post for about five years. The petitioner has staked his claim in view of the provisions contained in Financial Hand Book.

(3.) The petitioner has joined on the post of Passenger Tax Superintendent on 27.3.1985. He is a permanent employee duly selected in accordance with rules for the post of Passenger Tax Superintendent. On 13.6.2003, the petitioner was directed to discharge duty of the post of A.R.T.O. by office memorandum of the said date, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. While permitting the petitioner to discharge duty on the post of A.R.T.O., it was provided that the petitioner shall not claim any financial gain as well as seniority of the said post. The petitioner continued on the post of A.R.T.O. Upto 31.12.2008.