RAM ADHAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.K.Verma, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.

(2.) Petitioner has challenged order dated 12.08.2011 whereby service benefits claimed by petitioner from the date said benefit was extended to alleged junior persons has been denied.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was initially appointed on post of Junior Clerk on 18.12.1983 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Senior Assistant on 20.12.2001. It has been submitted that in the meantime while petitioner was posted as Junior Clerk, Sri Deena Nath Swarnakar and Sri Virendra Pratap Pandey who were junior to petitioner were promoted to the next higher post of Senior Clerk in the years 1987 and 1991. The fact regarding promotion of such persons was unknown to petitioner since it was made on District-wise basis. Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn attention to final seniority list dated 12.12.2001 for clerical cadre in which petitioner's name figures at serial no.110 with names of said two persons i.e. Sri Deena Nath Swarnakar and Sri Virendra Pratap Pandey being indicated as lower in seniority to that of petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner has also drawn attention to letter dated 16.11.2009 written by District Programme Officer, Deoria to Director, Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar specifically indicating the fact that petitioner was erroneously not promoted on the next higher post of Senior Clerk along with Sri Deena Nath Swarnakar and Sri Virendra Pratap Pandey although he was senior to said persons. Recommendation was made for grant of service benefits to petitioner as granted to said junior persons. Learned counsel for petitioner has also drawn attention to paragraph 5 of Writ Petition in which names of persons junior to petitioner has been indicated. Said averments made in paragraph 5 of writ petition have not been denied in paragraph 6 of counter affidavit. In view of aforesaid, it has been submitted that even as per records, it is clear that petitioner was senior to aforesaid two persons and was, thus, entitled to service benefits extended to them. Learned counsel for petitioner has also relied upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh Grewal and another v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 94 with regard to removal of anomalies and parity in pay of senior persons with that of juniors. As such, it has been submitted that petitioner is entitled for benefits granted to junior persons.