PARESH YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri B.P. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri V.K. Singh, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State. Petitioners, who are seven in number, claim that they were appointed as Passenger Tax Officer/Superintendent in the transport department of the State of U.P. They were asked to work on officiating basis as Assistant Regional Transport Officer (A.R.T.O.) during different periods between the year 1996 to 2003. It is further their case that in the year 2003 they have all been regularly selected for appointment as A.R.T.O. For the period of officiation as A.R.T.O. i.e. between 1996 to 2003, the petitioners set up a claim for payment of salary admissible to the post of A.R.T.O. inasmuch as it is their case that they were required to hold two posts at the same time and to discharge duties of two posts namely Passenger Tax Officer/Superintendent and Assistant Regional Transport Officer, simultaneously. It is the case of the petitioners that in accordance with Para 49(1) of Chapter VI of the Financial Handbook, Vol. II, Part 2 to 4, they are entitled to payment of salary of the higher post while holding dual charge.

(2.) Some of the petitioners had filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51469 of 2012 and others filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55030 of 2012 alleging therein that their request for grant of salary of the higher post of A.R.T.O. for the period they were holding charge of two posts has not been considered.

(3.) The writ petitions were decided vide order dated 4.10.2012 and dated 17.10.2012 requiring the state Government to examine the grievance of the petitioners individually in light of the judgment of the High Court in the case of Subhash Chandra Kushwaha v. State of U.P.,2009 1 ADJ 155.