- (1.) Heard Dr. L.P. Misra, learned Counsel for the review petitioner and perused the record. By means of the present review petition, the petitioner has prayed for review of the judgment and order dated 27.11.2013 passed by this Court in writ petition No. 3198 (SS) of 2003, Dr. Sursari Tarang Misra v. U.P. Sainik School Society and others. Initially, Dr. Sursari Tarang Misra approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 3198 (SS) of 2003 with the prayer that an advertisement dated 1.3.2000 has been published in the daily newspaper i.e., Dainik Jagaran for regular appointment on various posts in the Institution known as U.P. Sainik School, Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow.
(2.) In response to the said facts, the review petitioner appeared before the interview/selection committee for appointment on the post of Hindi Teacher. The said committee has recommended the petitioner for giving an ad-hoc appointment and on 1.7.2000, he was appointed as a Master in Hindi in the Institution (hereinafter referred to as the Institution). In the said capacity, he worked and discharged his duties uptill 10.5.2013. Thereafter, his services were terminated on the ground of contractual employee and a period of contractual appointment has come to an end.
(3.) In view of the above factual background, Dr. L.P. Misra, learned Counsel for the review-petitioner while pressing the review-petition submits that an advertisement in pursuant to which the petitioner has submitted his candidature for regular appointment, so he is entitled for regular salary and regular pay scale from the date of initial appointment w.e.f. 1.7.2000 including all other service benefits admissible to the post held by the review petitioner as he is working and discharging his duties. So, the action on the part of the official respondent thereby paying the consolidated amount to the review petitioner whereas the other teachers who are working in the Sainik School are being paid regular pay scale is arbitrary in nature.;