Brijesh Kumar, J. - (1.) Since the abovenoted two writ petitions relate to the same petitioner and the same subject-matter, i.e.. consequential benefits on account of holding the promotion post for a long period, hence, we have heard the petitions together which are disposed of by this order.
(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel.
(3.) The brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Director. State Museum, Lucknow in the year. 1962 and was confirmed on the said post on 1.4.1971. In the year. 1985, a post of Programme Executive was sanctioned by the Government in the Directorate of Culture. Petitioner was appointed on the said post on ad hoc basis by means of the order dated 26.8.1985. a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. This order shows that the petitioner was appointed on a newly created post of Programme Executive in the pay-scale of Rs. 850-40-1.050-EB-50-1,300-60-1.420-EB-60-1.720. The appointment was made on ad hoc basis till February, 1986 or till the regularly selected candidate by the U. P. Public Service Commission is appointed. whichever be earlier. The Government, it appears, laid down qualifications as well as mode and manner to fill up the post subject, to the approval of the Commission ; a copy of the said letter issued to the U. P. Public Service Commission dated May 17, 1986 has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. After indicating the qualifications, it provides that the recruitment shall be made by promotion or by deputation and in case of non-availability of candidate by direct recruitment. The Commission, it appears, approved the proposed qualifications and mode of recruitment which would be evident from Annexure-4, a letter dated October 25, 1989 sent by the U. P. Public Service Commission to the State Government. The subject was regarding laying down the qualifications and the eligibility for the post of Programme Executive. It is said that the proposal was given due consideration and the post may be filled up by promotion. The letter also stated that the candidates included in the enclosed list from serial Nos. 1 to 6 be considered for promotion. It will be relevant to mention that the name of the petitioner finds its place at serial No. 1. The Commission, in the end, also mentioned that the Commission be also informed of the steps taken in that regard. Petitioner, however, was continued on ad hoc basis under several orders of the State Government which have been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. There is no specific order after June, 1989 by which promotion of the petitioner was extended for a period of one year i.e.. upto June, 1990, The fact, however, remains that the petitioner in fact was continued to work on the post of Programme Executive till his retirement when he was reverted by the impugned order dated 29.10,1997 to the post of Assistant Director. Petitioner, by means of another letter dated 29.10.1997. was retired from service w.e.f. 31-10.1997. It is again to be noted that 29.10.1997 was the last working day for the petitioner as Programme Executive as the following two days were holidays on account of Deepawall, as indicated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. So. the fact that remains is that for all the practical purposes the petitioner was made to work on higher post of Programme Executive during the whole working period till his retirement.;