JUDGMENT
P.P. Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner Asha Ram Yadav was appointed as Entertainment Tax Inspector, in the year 1983 by the Entertainment Tax Commissioner, U.P. Lucknow. Subsequently, he was duly selected by the U.P. Public Service Commission in a competitive examination against permanent and substantive vacancy of Entertainment Tax Inspector. Thereafter, he was on probation for a period of two years. On completion of the aforesaid probation period he was confirmed on the post of Entertainment Tax Inspector in the year 1985. He was last posted as Senior Entertainment Tax Inspector in District Fatehpur. By the impugned order dated November 5, 1990 passed by the District Magistrate, Fatehpur, he, while working as Senior Entertainment Tax Inspector, was attached to the office and was directed not to check or inspect cinemas. According to the petitioner the impugned order is arbitrary and has put the petitioner in an embarrassing position as he is not being allowed to discharge the duties assigned to him as Senior Entertainment Tax Inspector. According to him, the action of the District Magistrate is mala fide,
2, The learned Standing Counsel was granted three weeks time to file counter- affidavit on November 20, 1990. No counter-affidavit has, however, been filed on behalf of the respondents so far despite several opportunities have been given to the respondents and last ‘stop order’ having been passed on January 3, 1991.
3. I heard Sri A.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is a Senior Entertainment Tax Inspector working on that post at Fatehpur since March, 1990 but he has wrongly and arbitrarily been attached to the office by the impugned order. As no counter-affidavit has been filed, I have no option but to believe these averments made in the writ petition. Moreover, these facts have not been challenged by the learned Standing Counsel who was also heard in this case.
5. In my opinion the action of the District Magistrate in not giving the posting and work to the petitioner commensurate to his status is not proper. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Chinnasamy v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. has held(1988-II-LLJ-181 at 183):
“The scheme postulates that every public officer has to be given some posting commensurate to his status and circumstances should be so created that he would be functioning so as to render commensurate service in lieu of the benefits received by him from the State. If an officer does not behave as required of him under the law he is certainly liable to be punished in accordance with law but it would ordinarily not be appropriate to continue an officer against a post and provide no work to him and yet pay him out of the Consolidated Fund.”
6. The present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As has already been said above, the impugned order dated November 5, 1990 passed by the respondent No. 1 attaching the petitioner with office is improper and arbitrary. It cannot be sustained.
7. For the reasons given above, the impugned order dated November 5, 1990 (Annexure 1) is set aside. The respondents are directed to give proper posting to the petitioner commensurate to his status as Senior Entertainment Tax Inspector within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the respondent No. 2.
8. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is finally disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.