Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40635 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12877 of 2024 Petitioner :- Amar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lok Nirman Vibhag Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kaushal Kishore Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Vikash Singh, learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to concerned authority to treat petitioner as promoted in a Class-III post upon completion of five years of regular Class-IV appointment with retrospective effect and consequential benefits. Consequential prayer for re-fixation of pension with consequential benefits has also been sought. 3. It has been submitted that initially petitioner was employed in a Class-IV post on daily wages basis in 1985 and was subsequently regularized in service vide order dated 02.12.1990 whereafter vide order dated 03.09.1995, it was provided that 20% seats of Class-III employees would be filled through promotion from Class-IV employee. It is submitted that despite such directions being issued, petitioner was not promoted within the time frame and was in fact subsequently granted promotion on a Class-III post vide order dated 15.06.2013. It is submitted that in similar circumstances, one Laxman Kishor Mehrotra, who was similarly situated as petitioner has been granted promotion in a Class-III post in the year 1996 itself due to which petitioner alleges discrimination. 4. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions, which are taken on record and as per which, petitioner was employed on a Class-IV post in Barabanki whereas Laxman Kishor Mehrotra was employed in District Bahraich and the said person was promoted in the Class-III post in view of vacancy which had arisen on substantive basis whereas petitioner was promoted in District Barabanki only when such vacancy arose in the year 2013. 5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioner has earlier already been promoted on a Class-III post in the year 2013 and seeks parity with the aforementioned Laxman Kishor Mehrotra. 6. A perusal of written instructions provided to learned State Counsel, however, indicates the fact that both persons were working in different districts and promotion was granted whenever vacancy arose on a Class-III post in the district itself. Since substantive vacancy on a Class-III post arose in District Barabanki only in the year 2012, petitioner's case was considered and he was granted such promotion in 2013. In such circumstances, there is no equality in both cases. 7. Even considering the prayer so made, learned counsel for petitioner has been unable to indicate any rule or provision whereunder he can be treated to have been promoted on a Class-III post upon completion of five years of regular service on a Class-IV post. 8. In view of reasons indicated hereinabove, the petition fails and is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 Satish Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench