JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, AC to SC-IV for the State through V.C.

2. The instant application was preferred by the original petitioner-Narayan Ram for a direction upon the respondent authorities to make payment of 20% additional pay of basic pay of the petitioner in lieu of work taken by the respondent authorities for the post of Draftsman in terms of order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3966 of 2000 as well as Letter No.1090 dated 21.06.2001 for the period from 5.11.1987 till date of his retirement i.e. 31.07.2013.

3. During pendency of this writ application, the original petitioner has died and thereafter, his widow has been substituted pursuant to the order of this Court.

4. The facts of the case as it appears from the writ application is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Work Charge in the year 1972 and, accordingly, he joined in the Department on 29.05.1972. After completing the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired from his service on 31.07.2013. During his service, on the basis of application filed by the petitioner for grant of promotion to the post of Draftsman, Respondent no.6 had issued a letter no.163 dated 14.2.1985, stating therein that in his division, there are three sanctioned posts of Draftsman and out of three only one Draftsman is posted and two posts are lying vacant. By the said letter, the said respondent had recommended the petitioner for promotion on officiating basis against vacant sanctioned posts of Draftsman (Annexure-1).

Again by Memo no.583 dated 17.4.1985, an office order was issued, whereby the petitioner had been allowed 20% additional pay of his basic pay till further order in terms of Rule 103 of the Service Code (Annexure-2). Subsequently, under Memo no.2467 dated 28.10.1986, a letter was issued under the signature of the Engineer-in-Chief, road Construction Department-Respondent No.5, where a request had been made to get consent of the Finance Department regarding payment of 20% additional pay of the basic pay of the petitioner, who is working on the post of Draftsman in terms of rule 103 of the Service Code.

In the meantime by Letter no.433 dated 14.5.1987, a letter had been issued by the Respondent no.6 to the Respondent no.5 in which it has been specifically mentioned that in the division, there are three sanctioned posts of Draftsman and out of three, two posts are still vacant and he had requested to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Draftsman (Annexure-4).

Again an office order was issued vide Memo no.1242 dated 13.7.1987, whereby approval had been given for payment of 20% additional pay of the basic pay in terms of Rule 103 of the Service Code for further six months (Annexure-5). Thereafter, again the Respondent No.5 had issued Letter no.2146 dated 11.12.1987 to the Respondent no.6, directing him to send a clear cut opinion to the office of the signatory for the purpose of giving promotion on officiating basis on the post of Draftsman to the petitioner, so that appropriate step may be taken accordingly (Annexure-6).

After expiry of the sanction order for payment of 20% additional pay, as shown in letter dated 13.7.1987, again by letter no.1101 dated 19.12.1987, a letter has been issued from the office of the Respondent no.6 to the Respondent no.5, whereby Respondent no.6 has clearly stated that all three posts of Draftsman in his division are vacant and due to non-availability of regular Draftsman the petitioner is working since long and his work is fully satisfactory to the concerned authority. Therefore, he may be given promotion on the post the Draftsman and at present, 20% additional pay of basic pay can be given to the petitioner, as he is performing the duty of Draftsman (Annexure-7). Pursuant to the said letter dated 19.12.1987, an office order was issued by the Respondent no.5, whereby sanction had been accorded for payment of 20% additional pay of basic pay from the