Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. - (1.) WITH the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the Court proceeds to decide the matter finally.
(2.) PETITIONER has prayed for the following reliefs in the instant writ petition. I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider the grievances of the petitioner in the light of the judgments passed by this Hon'ble Court in matter of Abdul Haq and others versus State of UP and others as well as the directives of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana & others versus Ravindra Kumar & others, and decide the representation dated 10.11.2011 contained in Annexure No. 6 to the instant writ petition. II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to provide salary from the current month in the promotional scale, next higher to the scale, petitioner is getting salary presently, with an additional increment to the petitioner, and to pay the difference of salary along with an interest @ 12% according tot he circular dated 2.12.2000, till date of actual payment reckoned from the initial date of engagement. III. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just fit and proper in the light of facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice. IV. Allow this writ petition of the petitioner with costs. From a perusal of the aforesaid quoted prayers, it appears that the petitioner who was initially working in the work charge establishment of the respondents, was subsequently given regular appointment and is praying that the services rendered by him in work charge establishment should be counted for the purposes of grant of revised pay scales, additional increments and promotional pay scale etc.
(3.) AS per the prayer in the instant writ petition, the claim of the petitioner is based on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ravindra Kumar and others, in Civil Appeal No. 6740 -6741 of 1997.;