RAVI KANT GUPTA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two reliefs are being claimed in this writ petition by the petitioner, firstly, that he is entitled to the salary attached to the post on which he is discharging the duties and responsibilities, and secondly, that the State Government be direct to give approval to the proposal of the Improvement Trust, Patiala to absorb the petitioner as Accountant.

(2.) Petitioner was appointed as Clerk on 16.6.1976 in the Improvement Trust, Patiala. The petitioner continued as such when on 1.7.1976 he was asked to discharge the duties of Accounts Clerk in addition to his own duties. He continued to discharge duties as Accounts Clerk till 31.3.1979 when on 1.4.1979 he as asked to discharge the duties of Senior Accounts Clerk. He continued to function as Senior Accounts Clerk till 3.11.1986 when again on 4.11.1986 he was asked to discharge the duties and responsibilities on an Accountant. Till date, the petitioner is performing the duties of an Accountant. Petitioner has averred that in response to advertisement published in the Tribune dated 15.9.1986 he applied for the post of Accountant. The application of the petitioner was forwarded by respondent No. 2 to the Director, Local Government Department, Punjab on 25.9.1986. Again the petitioner applied for absorption as Accountant in November, 1986 and his application was forwarded to Director, Local Government Department on 28.11.1986 but the Directorate informed the petitioner vide its letter dated 19.5.1987 that the present arrangement be continued till regular Accountant by direct recruitment is posted. Petitioner has also averred that he has passed the departmental examination of Accountant on 27.3.1981.

(3.) The State Government has not filed any written statement. However, the Improvement Trust in its written statement has not denied that the petitioner had been performing additional duties of Accounts Clerk, Senior Accounts Clerk and Accountant but it has been averred that it was purely a temporary arrangement and it was brought to the notice of the petitioner that he is not entitled to any extra benefits. Counsel heard