PHOOL CHANDRA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Satyanshu Ojha for the respondent-University.

(2.) This appeal questions the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 31.5.2016 whereby the petitioner has been denied the claim of minimum of the pay scale on the ground that such benefit which has been claimed is an abstract claim and, therefore, in view of the judgment in the case of Anil Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. & others, 2015 (33) LCD 239 the appellant-petitioner was not entitled to the said benefits.

(3.) We have considered the submissions raised and what we find from the petition is that petitioner was claiming a specific relief to the effect that one Smt. Mithilesh Pandey who was junior to the petitioner was getting the minimum of pay scale whereas the said benefit was denied to the petitioner, even though the petitioner was working since 1996 whereas Smt. Mithilesh Pandey has been working since year 2000. Certain orders passed by this Court had also been relied to substantiate such claims. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the aforesaid facts were not abstract and were specific reliefs that have not even been referred to by the learned Single Judge.