SALEES AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri G.C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. Notices had been issued to the opposite party no.4 but no one has put in appearance on his behalf. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is taken on record.

(2.) By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought a direction to the opposite parties to promote the petitioner on the post of Assistant Accountant w.e.f. 13.04.1989 which is the date on which the alleged junior i.e. the opposite party no.4 was promoted on the said post. Further relief with regard to the higher scale of the post of Accountant and other service benefits in parity with the opposite party no.4 has also been sought by the petitioner.

(3.) As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed on 04.12.1986 on the post of Junior Accountant (Clerk) and by means of the order dated 31.07.1987 he was repatriated to this original cadre in the same Department. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5433 of 1997 in which the order of repatriation was stayed by means of the order dated 12.08.1987, in pursuance of which the petitioner continued on the post of Junior Accountant (Clerk). Subsequently in the year 1989 opinion was sought for making ad hoc promotions on the post of Junior Accountant in the Department with the letter seeking legal opinion indicating the petitioner to be senior to the opposite party no.4. On the aforesaid letter, legal opinion was given that in pursuance of the interim order of this Court, the petitioner could be promoted on ad hoc basis on the post of Assistant Accountant. However, ignoring the legal opinion, merely on account of the pendency of the writ petition, the opposite party no.4 was promoted on ad hoc basis on the post of Assistant Accountant by means of the order 13.04.1989. It has been stated that the aforesaid promotion was challenged by the petitioner before the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow which however, became infructuous on account of the subsequent developments. At present we are not concerned with the aforesaid proceedings relating to ad hoc promotion on the post of Assistant Accountant.