UDAI BHAN MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. N. Shukla, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to treat the petitioner's services as qualifying services w. e. f. , 1984-85, for the purposes of calculating pension and to make payment of City Compensatory Allowance and City House Rent Allowance alongwith the salary as well as the arrears of salary with effect from 31- 3-1997, in the pay scale of 2610-60-3150-65-3540.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was born on 1-7-1946, and the same date of birth was recorded in the service book of the petitioner. Initially, he was appointed as Mate in the establishment of Public Works Department on 19-8- 1980. He received his emoluments regularly without any interruption and he worked there without any break. In the year 1984, the Assistant Engineer, National Highway Division, Public Works Department Lucknow, opposite party No. 4, issued a certificate dated 14-8-1984, indicating therein that the petitioner is working in the department continuously.

(3.) THE petitioner submits that in pursuance of the order of regularisation the petitioner was paid regular salary in the pay scale of 2610-60-3150-65-3540. THE petitioner was given salary in the aforesaid pay scale with effect from January, 2000 and accordingly he is entitled to get his regular salary with effect from 31-3-1997. THE petitioner remained posted for the maintenance of Lucknow-Sitapur Road, from Kms. 488 to Kms. 493, which falls in the territory of city area (Lucknow City) and therefore, should get City Compensatory Allowance of city area which is Rs. 40/- per month. In the salary for the month of January, 2000, which was paid in the month of February, 2000, the City Compensatory Allowance, was included. However, thereafter, the same was illegally curtailed without assigning any reason. Similarly, the City House Rent Allowance, which was admissible for the city area i. e. , at the rate of Rs. 380/- per month, has also been curtailed. Since then, the petitioner is suffering a loss of Rs. 420/- per month due to arbitrariness of the opposite parties. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner submitted several representations to the respondents for redressal of his grievances but all in vain.