Court No. - 16
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7048 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ramashankar Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brij Raj Singh,Satya Prakash Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel petitoner and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh for the respondent no. 5.
Petitioner was initially appointed as a Class-IV employee in Government Training College, Lalitpur. He subsequently filed Writ Petition No. 12878 of 1996 with the allegation that he was already promoted as Clerk on 2.1.1992. His claim was accepted and the writ petition was allowed vide following orders:-
"Accordingly, respondents are directed to pay difference of salary to the petitioner treating him duly appointed clerk on Class-III posts by the order dated 2.1.1992, to calculate the salary which he was entitled to receive as clerk ( Class-III post), including all annual increments, privilege, perks etc. as may have become due under relevant Government Order issued from time to time and pay balance ( unpaid) amount (after adjusting the salary already paid to the petitioner as a Class-IV employee or otherwise) with 12% simple interest within three months of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, provided the petitioner has continued in the service for the relevant period and continue to pay him accordingly in accordance with law.
Writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs".
It appears that a recall application thereafter was filed by the State Government, which is said to have remained pending. The authorities implemented the order in part but withheld the release of arrears of salary. At this stage, petitioner contends that persons junior to him have already been promoted to the post of Senior Clerk but his claim has not been considered only on account of pendency of review.
In case the claim of the petitioner is kept pending only for the reasons of pendency of review, the same would be impermissible in law inasmuch as consequences of the order of this Court cannot be avoided only on account of pendency of review when there is no stay granted, and has otherwise remained pending for more than 18 years. Claim of petitioner for promotion is thus liable to be considered, in case persons junior to him have been promoted.
Petitioner has already represented in the matter before the respondent no. 3 and his representation is stated to be pending.
In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, this petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the respondent no. 3 to examine claim of petitioner for promotion, keeping in view the observations made within a period of 4 months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018 n.u.