- (1.) PRESENT appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 5.1.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein the writ petition preferred by the Appellant has been dismissed.
(2.) THE case of the Appellant was that when he retired in December, 2005 he was working and discharging his duties as Revenue Inspector in Nagar Nigam Kanpur Nagar, therefore, he is entitled for the pension on the said post. According to him he had been paid pension as admissible to the post of Revenue Inspector and, therefore, the decision taken by the authorities to pay him pension by treating him to be working on the post of Amin is wholly illegal. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the Appellant who was working as Revenue Inspector was earlier promoted from the post of Amin on ad hoc basis on 6th November, 1985, which order was cancelled subsequently on 16.6.1988. The order dated 16.6.1988 was challenged by means of writ petition No. 11000 of 1988, which was dismissed on 9.10.2001. Thus the Appellant can not claim to have been promoted on the post of Revenue Inspector. There is nothing on record to show that at the time of his retirement there is any other other promoting him on the post of Revenue Inspector. We have heard Sri K.C. Shukla holding brief of Sri Anil Kumar Mishra on behalf of the Appellant. Sri Chandan Sharma who represents the Nagar Nigam and the learned Standing Counsel who represents the Respondent No. 1 and perused the impugned judgment and order dated 5.1.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, giving rise to the present appeal, grounds taken in the memo of appeal and the documents filed along with it.
(3.) SRI Shukla submitted that the observation of the learned Single Judge that there is no documents to show that the Appellant was working as a Revenue Inspector at the time of his retirement is misplaced as voluminous documents have been filed to show that the Appellant was discharging duties of Revenue Inspector. The salary bill was being prepared and the salary was being paid to the Appellant as Revenue Inspector and even the pension has been paid treating the Appellant as Revenue Inspector. The submission is wholly misconceived. Learned Single Judge had held that there is no document showing that the Appellant had been promoted on the post of Revenue Inspector. Mere payment of salary and discharging duties would not amount to an order of promotion, that may be on account of the exigencies of work. The fact remains that the order reverting the Petitioner to the post of Amin on 16.6.1988 had been upheld by this Court in writ petition No. 11000 of 1988, which was dismissed on 9.10.2001. That being the position we are of the considered opinion that the Appellant is only entitled for payment of pension on the post of Amin and not on the post of Revenue Inspector. The order of learned Single Judge, therefore, does not suffer from any legal infirmity.;