ASHOK KUMAR MISHRA Vs. DILIP KUMAR CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS similar points of law are involved in these two cases, both have been heard together and this common judgment will govern both the cases.

(2.) THE facts of the individual cases are to be set forth for prompt appreciation of the points.

(3.) FACTS relate to C.W.J.C.No.4291, in short, are that the petitioner was appointed initially on the temporary post of the Legal Assistant under the Board on the pay scale of Rs. 345 -13 -465 -15 -570 and subsequently he was posted on promotion against the sanctioned post of Law Officer on the pay scale of Rs. 2200 -75 -2800 -100 -4000 per month, subject to, however, final approval by the Bureau of Public Enterprises. This promotion letter is Annexure -9 to the supplementary affidavit. It is asserted by the petitioner that since passing of the Annexure -9 he is still working on the said post continuously. At this stage it is pertinent to point out that in the main writ application prayer has been made to pay him the scale of pay of the Legal Assistant i.e. the pay scale of Rs. 345 -13 -465 -15 -570 as grievance was made that even after appointment as Legal Assistant the same scale of pay was not given to him. There is no denial of the fact that subsequent to the filing of the writ application the same scale of pay was allowed to the petitioner, but subsequently when through Annexure -9 the petitioner was promoted and posted against the sanctioned post of Law Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 2200 -4000, the said pay scale was not paid. The petitioner by way of amendment petition made a further prayer to direct the respondents to grant the said pay scale. On 18.7.1996 amendment petition was filed but from the record it does not appear that the said amendment petition was ever placed before the Bench for passing necessary orders.