Allahabad High Court
Bipin Kumar Srivastava vs State Of U.P. & Others on 19 July, 2010
Author: Arun Tandon
Bench: Arun Tandon
Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21699 of 2009 Petitioner :- Bipin Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- M.M. Sahai Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Sunita Agarwal Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State-respondents.
Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay difference of salary between the post of Lab Bearar and the post of Junior Lab Assistant/Library Assistant w.e.f. 7.12.2000 and to pay current salary admissible to the post of Junior Lab Assistant/Library Assistant.
Petitioner claims to be appointed a Class IV employee (Lab Bearar) in Deendayal Upadhyaya Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur on 15.4.1997. It is stated that one post of Lab Assistant, which is Class III post, fell vacant due to retirement of Kripa Shankar Tiwari in the year 2000. Work of the said post is being taken from the petitioner. It is on these allegations the petitioner has prayed the relief as noticed above. In paragraph 18 it is stated he filed Writ Petition No.64363 of 2005 seeking promotion as Lab Assistant. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 5.10.2005. He filed a Review Application, which was also rejected on 8.5.2007. The University has advertised the post of Lab Assistant and therefore, the petitioner has got a fresh cause to approach this Court.
The claim of the petitioner for promotion as Lab Assistant stood closed with the dismissal of Writ Petition No.64363 of 2005 under the order of this Court dated 5.10.2005 and with the subsequent dismissal of Review Application. The writ court specifically noticed that learned counsel of the petitioner could not point out any law or rules which gave him a right to claim promotion. Relief for payment of salary on the principle of quantum merit for working on a inferior post could be claimed in his first petition itself which apparently appears could to have not been done. This second inning is not permissible.
Writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.7.2010 Kpy