- (1.) HEARD Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) THROUGH the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 3rd February, 1991 whereby petitioner's representation to designate him as a Law Assistant has been rejected as also the order dated 22.5.1991 whereby petitioner has been appointed as Case Clerk by the Managing Director of the U.P. Co -operative Union.
(3.) THE facts as undraped are that initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk on 25 th August, 1991 in the Office of Opposite Party No. 3 and he was regularized on the said post on 3.7.1986 and further was confirmed in the year 1989. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that owing to his best performance from the date of his initial appointment, he was assigned the work of Law Assistant. Firstly he was attached with the other Law Assistants. However, subsequently he was given an independent charge of Law Assistant to follow the cases of the department pending in the High Court. Since the petitioner was assigned to work as Law Assistant, he requested to designate him as such. It is stated that earlier two persons, namely, Sri H.P. Agnihotri and Sri T.P. Jaiswal had been working as Law Assistant but later on they were promoted to the post of Law Officer and Additional Law Officer. General Manager ( Administration/ Law) also recommended to designate the petitioner as Law Assistant and provide the pay scales prescribed therefor. However, by means of order impugned the respondent rejected his claim on the ground that for the work of Law Assistant assigned to him he was provided allowance at the rate of Rs.125/ - per month vide order dated 19.9.1990 and he accepted so. The order impugned also speaks that there was no post of Law Assistant on the date of order available in the department. Moreover, the petitioner was junior to at least three employees.;