Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:12701 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9943 of 2017 Petitioner :- Ram Vilash Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Gram Vikas And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Chandra Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the respondents. 2. The matter has been argued at length. The learned counsels for the contesting parties are agreeable on the point that the petitioner is entitled to the 3rd financial upgradation in the grade pay of Rs.4200/- w.e.f. 01.05.2015 but for the fact that despite repeated reminders, he has not submitted the log book for the car which he was purportedly driving in the capacity of a driver for the period from 01.07.2014 to 01.10.2016. The requirement of the log book has been indicated by the learned Standing counsel for the purpose of adjudging his suitability, more particularly, when as per the previous conduct, as has been referred to in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit, the petitioner has been absent from duty for various periods. 3. However, a perusal of the periods of absence of the petitioner, as indicated in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit, would indicate that none of the periods of absence pertain to the period from 2014 to 2016 for which the log book is required. 4. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that at the time of handing over of the vehicle itself, he had handed over the log book as would be apparent from a perusal of the charge certificate, a copy of which has been filed as annexure SA-8 to the supplementary affidavit dated 24.01.2025. 5. However, a perusal of the said charge certificate would indicate that it does not contain any recital of the log book being handed over along with the vehicle. 6. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter remains that the log book is required by the respondents in order to find out as to whether the petitioner has carried out the duties for the aforesaid period from July 2014 to October 2016. 7. The Court may only observe that there may be other methods also of finding out as to whether the petitioner has carried out the duties of the post of Driver for the aforesaid period to which the Court may not elaborate. 8. Considering the aforesaid short controversy as involved in the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2 i.e. Principal Secretary, State Planning Commission-2, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow to examine the claim of the petitioner for grant of the 3rd financial upgradation in the grade pay of Rs.4200/- w.e.f. 01.05.2015 after adjudging the suitability for the period from 01.07.2014 to 01.10.2016 by any method which may be required keeping in view of the observations made above. Let such consideration be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 9. It is also provided that in case the respondent No.2 finds himself incompetent of deciding the controversy then he would remit the matter before the competent authority who in turn would take a decision in the matter. 10. In case the decision is taken in favour of the petitioner, it goes without saying that the benefits of the same would also be paid to the petitioner which would be paid within a period of four weeks from a decision being taken in favour of the petitioner. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 S. Shivhare Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench