J C SETH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Vikas Budhwar and the learned State Counsel Sri B. K. Yadav.

(2.) THE petitioner who was initially appointed as Sanitary Inspector in Municipal Board, Lucknow was absorbed in the U. P. Palika Administrative (Superior) Services vide order of the State Government dated 6th March, 1971 but that order became the subject-matter of challenge in writ petition No. 4328 of 1978 filed by Sri Kamlesh Nath Agarwal and Sri Vidhya Nath Tiwari. THE High Court quashed the order aforesaid (dated 6th March, 1971) vide its order dated 9th May, 1978. THE petitioner preferred an Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court wherein an interim order of stay was passed saying that the petitioner shall not be reverted from the post of Up Nagar Adhikari. THE petitioner, thus, continued to hold the post of Up Nagar Adhikari in pursuance of his absorption in the Palika Centralised Services. However, during the pendency of the aforesaid Special Leave Petition the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired from service. In the meantime the petitioner was promoted to the next higher post of Executive Officer.

(3.) HOWEVER, the State did not feel fully satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner. HOWEVER, it protected the recovery of the alleged excess amount paid in the higher pay scale, while he was working on the higher post but directed that the benefit of the working on the higher post and higher pay scale would not be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the denial of post retiral benefits by counting his period of service on the higher post and the salary paid to him in the given pay scale and consequential post retiral benefits being paid of lesser amount, has challenged the order mainly on the ground that the order of the Supreme Court does not allow the respondents not to treat the petitioner as Sahayak Nagar Adhikari or Up Nagar Adhikari at the time of retirement and to deny the usual consequential benefits which are otherwise available to an officer who retires from the said post.