Suresh Prasad Gupta vs State Of U.P.And 7 Others
2019 Latest Caselaw 6316 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Chief Justice's Court
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 828 of 2019
 

 
Appellant :- Suresh Prasad Gupta
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And 7 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Suresh Singh,Sri Anil Bhushan,Senior Advocate
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice
 
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the order dated 29.05.2019 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ-A No. 30098 of 2015.

By the order aforesaid, learned Single Bench dismissed the petition for writ preferred by the appellant-petitioner to have seniority relating to the post of Chief Cashier from the year 2007.

Suffice to state that the appellant-petitioner was appointed as Chief Cashier by way of ad hoc promotion in the year 2007 and regular promotion was accorded to him against the vacancies relating to the year 2012-13. Prior to that, the appellant-petitioner preferred a petition for writ to claim the pay relating to post of Chief Cashier on basis of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work enshrined under Article 39(d) read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petition for writ aforesaid was allowed by the order dated 20.12.2012 with a direction to make the payment of salary to the petitioner on the "officiating basis, in which he is working".

The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that learned Single Bench failed to appreciate that the appellant was continuously officiating on the post of Chief Cashier and, therefore, on regular promotion, the respondents should have allowed him the complete seniority from the date he was officiating on the post concerned.

We do not find any merit with the argument advanced.

True it is, if a person is working even on temporary basis against a substantive vacancy that ultimately resulted into his regular promotion, then, on basis of the continuous officiation, the seniority is required to be reckoned by including the officiating period. In the case in hand, the promotion was accorded to the petitioner against a regular post only in the year 2012-13 and, prior to that, only the salary pertaining to the post concerned was paid to him on basis of the principle of equal pay for equal work. The simple holding charge of a post would not entail the appellant-petitioner to get his seniority reckoned since 2007.

In our considered opinion, learned Single Bench does not commit any such error that may warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction.

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 1.8.2019

Shubham

.

(Vivek Varma, J.)    (Govind Mathur, C.J.)