JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner, praying that a mandamus be issued, ordering the Superintending Engineer, Electricity Works Division, Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Prayagraj, to pay arrears of salary due to the petitioner on account of his entitlement to receive the equivalent of one month's basic pay every year of his service as honorarium, in accordance with the UP Power Corporation's order dated 5th July, 2011, making provision in that behalf for regular drivers. 2. The short case of the petitioner is that he was a permanent driver in the employ of the UP Power Corporation Ltd. (for short, 'the Corporation') and working under the immediate control of the Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Madhyamik Karya Khand, Prayagraj. He retired from service on 30.06.2019 upon attaining the age of superannuation. The UP Power Corporation issued an order, bearing Letter No. 622&dkfouh ,oa oså çå&29@ikdkfy@11&5&ih@90 ¼Vhlh&c½ dated 5th July, 2011, making provision for the payment of a month's extra salary in every financial year as honorarium to regular drivers of the Corporation attached to a vehicle. The sum of money payable on this account was directed to be the equivalent of the driver's basic pay for a month. This provision was made, bearing in mind the difficult services rendered by drivers as a class. The Corporation's order of 5th July, 2011 was made applicable from the then current financial year 2010-11. The petitioner retired on 30.06.2019, but was never paid the aforesaid honorarium, equivalent to a month's basic pay. He represented the matter to the respondents thrice: once on 17.02.2021, and again on 28.09 to 2021 and 18.10.2021. 3. In response to these demands, the petitioner states that a memo dated 01.11.2021 was issued by an Executive Engineer on behalf of the Chief Engineer (Distribution), Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Prayagraj, addressed to the Superintending Engineer, Electricity Works Division, Prayagraj, bringing to his notice the fact that the petitioner has not been paid his honorarium equivalent to a month's basic pay each year in terms of the Corporation's order dated 05.07.2011, which he has claimed. The letter mentions that the Executive Engineer has been instructed to say that the petitioner's claim for a month's extra pay should be dealt with according to rules. The letter mentions that the Executive Engineer has been instructed to say that the petitioner's claim for a month's extra pay should be dealt with according to rules. The petitioner's case further is that despite the aforesaid instructions issued from the office of the Chief Engineer (Distribution), the Superintending Engineer, respondent No.3, has failed to make good the petitioner's arrears on account of his unpaid honorarium. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 by the Executive Engineer, Electricity Works Division, Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Prayagraj. The petitioner's claim, which works out to nine month's extra salary, as the Executive Engineer says, has been denied as misconceived. The reason pleaded in Paragraph No.6 of the counter affidavit is that the petitioner is not entitled to draw extra salary as honorarium for nine month's, because he was suffering from heart disease as well as lung ailments, and on that account, did not work as a driver on his own request. He was assigned office work as a record keeper. It is pleaded that it was for the said reason that the driver's work was undertaken through outsourcing with the respondents entering into a contract with a certain Prakhar Enterprises. A copy of the agreement with Prakhar Enterprises has been annexed to the return filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3. 5. In Paragraph No.9 of the counter affidavit, it is averred that from 2010 to 2019, the work of a driver was done through an outsourcing agency as the petitioner was seriously ill with his heart ailment and lung disease. It is also averred that for the said reasons, the petitioner's request was accepted on humanitarian grounds, assigning him office work, where he had to maintain record. It is also pleaded in the same paragraph that the petitioner was paid medical reimbursement worth Rs.1,39,600/- for the treatment of his heart disease from 05.07.2013 to 18.07.2013, when he was hospitalized at the Heartline Cardiac Care Centre, Prayagraj. A copy of the relative bill along with the medical certificates is annexed as Annexure CA-2 to the return filed on behalf of the respondents. The case of the respondents, therefore, is that the petitioner never worked as a driver during the relevant period of time, and on his own request, was assigned to office duties. The driver's work was outsourced. 6. The case of the respondents, therefore, is that the petitioner never worked as a driver during the relevant period of time, and on his own request, was assigned to office duties. The driver's work was outsourced. 6. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has disputed the respondents' stand. In Paragraph No.6, it is averred that the petitioner was appointed a driver and retired as such. He has asserted that according to the Corporation's order dated 05.07.2011 vide Paragraph No.2, it has been clarified that all regular drivers would be entitled to payment of a sum of money equivalent to a month's salary, every financial year. It is averred that the petitioner was never detailed to office work. He performed the duties of a driver. He was a Corporation employee, serving as a driver. So far as the agreement for outsourcing is concerned, the petitioner has nothing to do with it, as that is a matter between the Corporation and the contractor. It is averred in Paragraph No.9 of the rejoinder that during the course of his service, he needed treatment for once alone, which was reimbursed under the medical scheme by the respondents. The petitioner has averred that he was hospitalized for fifteen days and the fact that he received medical reimbursement for the treatment that he received in those fifteen days, is a matter of right for him under the medical scheme. It is specifically averred in Paragraph No.10 of the rejoinder affidavit that the petitioner has worked as a permanent driver, and his payslip, appended as Annexure-RA1, shows that he has received his salary as a driver. 7. Heard Mr. Shamim Uddin Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manoj Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Ms. Amrita Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the State. 8. This Court finds upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties that there is no issue about the entitlement of a regularly appointed driver of the Power Corporation, or one who is assigned to a Distribution Corporation, to receive in every financial year a sum of money as honorarium, which is equivalent to his basic pay. 8. This Court finds upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties that there is no issue about the entitlement of a regularly appointed driver of the Power Corporation, or one who is assigned to a Distribution Corporation, to receive in every financial year a sum of money as honorarium, which is equivalent to his basic pay. This provision, which virtually entitles a driver to be paid thirteen months of salary during the course of a year, that has twelve months, has been made bearing in mind the difficulty level of a driver's job and the fact that it may involve working outside normal working hours. It may also involve working extra duty hours. This, the Court supposes, is the basis for providing a month's extra emoluments during the course of a year to regular drivers, serving in the respondents establishment. 9. A perusal of the Corporation's order dated 05.07.2011, which is the source for this entitlement for drivers, serving either the Power Corporation or a Distribution Corporation, shows in the first paragraph that the entitlement to a month's extra emoluments is provided for regular drivers, who are actually assigned to vehicles. In the second paragraph, which is clarificatory in nature and appears to have been necessitated on account of answering queries or removing difficulties in the application of this extra payment scheme, it is said in unequivocal words that all working and regular drivers, whether a vehicle is allotted to them or not, are entitled to the honorarium. 10. The first paragraph of the Corporation's order of 5th July, 2011 would seem to suggest that the entitlement to honorarium, equivalent to a month's extra salary in a year, is admissible to those regular drivers alone, who are attached to a vehicle, but the clarification makes it evident that all regular drivers of Corporation's vehicles, who are working, are entitled to the equivalent of a month's extra salary during each financial year. 11. There is no dispute on facts that the petitioner was a regular and permanent driver in the employ of the respondent Corporation. The intent of the Corporation's order of 5th July, 2011 appears to be that regular drivers, who are working as such or driving vehicles, are entitled to be paid honorarium as envisaged in the said order. 12. 11. There is no dispute on facts that the petitioner was a regular and permanent driver in the employ of the respondent Corporation. The intent of the Corporation's order of 5th July, 2011 appears to be that regular drivers, who are working as such or driving vehicles, are entitled to be paid honorarium as envisaged in the said order. 12. This Court thinks that a regular driver must be presumed to be assigned driving duties, unless the contrary is proved by the employer, the respondent Corporation here. One of the possible cases, that could be pleaded and proved by the Corporation to say that a driver, like the petitioner, did not have to drive at all, is that the Corporation did not have a vehicle at all in the establishment, which he could drive. Here, this is not the respondents' case. What the respondent Corporation pleads is that they have, through outsourcing, hired a vehicle together with the driver on contract to work for the Executive Engineer for reason that the petitioner was ailing and could not drive due to his ill-health. It is not at all pleaded that there was no vehicle belonging to the Corporation available with them, during the period of time the petitioner was posted in the particular establishment. The case that a vehicle along with the driver was taken on contract through outsourcing does not show anywhere, the purpose why outsourcing was resorted to. It is nowhere mentioned in the contract or any other document, preceding the decision to outsource and hire a vehicle along with the driver, that the measure had to be taken because the petitioner, who was unwell, could not drive. In the absence of something, at least on record, prior to the decision to outsource, as the respondents say, to show that the petitioner was unwell, on account of which he could not drive and that was the reason for the respondent Corporation to outsource the services of a driver together with a vehicle, it cannot be inferred or even assumed that the outsourcing of a vehicle together with a driver, was a result of the petitioner's physical or medical disability to work as a driver. 13. There is another reason for this Court to think so. 13. There is another reason for this Court to think so. Considering the circumstantial angle, if it was a sick petitioner, who could not function as a driver, the respondents would not have hired a vehicle on contract along with the driver. They would have simply hired the services of a driver on contract through outsourcing, as it is done these days, utilizing what has been lately called the facility of a service provider. A driver hired through a service provider would then have been posted on the establishment's vehicle to drive it in the face of the regular driver's physical or medical inability. Much contrary to what the respondents endeavour to suggest, the hiring of a vehicle along with a driver, seems to suggest that the Corporation were in the need of an extra vehicle, where instead of buying one, they secured one through outsourcing along with the driver on contract. 14. Quite apart, to dispel the presumption that a regular driver was not in a position to discharge his duties as such, there would be orders and record to show the fact. There would be orders of arrangement made, assigning the petitioner to office duties, or as it is called ‘light duty’. No such order, office memorandum or other record, has been mentioned in the return filed by the respondents, much less annexed to it, that may establish that the petitioner was assigned to office duties on account of his failing health. This was particularly imperative for the respondents in the face of a clear denial by the petitioner in his rejoinder that he was never assigned office duties because he was unable to drive on account of ill health. The petitioner's stand is that he was once hospitalized for a heart condition, for which he was treated. The fact, that this involved medical reimbursement of expenses, is quite irrelevant to determine the issue that the petitioner has become a disabled driver. 15. What has been placed on record, would show that the petitioner was hospitalized for a heart ailment in the year 2013 from 05.07.2013 to 18.07.2013, a period of fourteen days. The mere fact that a person has suffered a medical condition related to the heart or his lungs, for which he has received treatment, cannot ipso facto lead to a conclusion that he has become disabled to function as a driver. The mere fact that a person has suffered a medical condition related to the heart or his lungs, for which he has received treatment, cannot ipso facto lead to a conclusion that he has become disabled to function as a driver. This Court has already remarked that for the said fact to be proved, the respondents would have to show some orders assigning light duties to the petitioner or office duties, as they plead. There is absolutely no record or material about assignment of duties to the petitioner away from his job as a driver and in the office, as the respondents say. The respondents could also establish the fact that the petitioner had become a disabled driver by producing a medical certification of the fact – the result of a test employees of Government owned establishments often undergo to assess their ability to discharge the kind of duties originally assigned to them. There is no medical certification on record produced by the respondents in support of their case that the petitioner has, in any manner, become disabled to function as a driver. There is nothing either, as earlier remarked to show, that he has actually been relieved of his duties as a driver and assigned some other work. 16. On this state of facts, material and evidence, it is difficult to accept the respondents' case that the petitioner has not been discharging his duties as a driver. It is not even a possibility, in the face of the presumption that the petitioner, a regular driver, would be discharging those duties. There is, thus, no basis or warrant for this Court to infer that the petitioner, during the relevant period of nine years, has not been performing the duties of a driver so as to disentitle him to honorarium during every financial year, equivalent to his basic pay, in accordance with the Corporation's order of 05.07.2011. The respondents are obliged to pay the petitioner honorarium for the period of nine years, that is to say, from the financial year 2010-11, as mentioned in the order dated 5th July, 2011 itself until the year of his retirement. The payment of the said sum of money, which has been unlawfully withheld by the respondents, would carry simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date it fell due until realization. 17. The payment of the said sum of money, which has been unlawfully withheld by the respondents, would carry simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date it fell due until realization. 17. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. A mandamus is issued to the Superintending Engineer, Electricity Works Division, Prayagraj, ordering him to pay the petitioner arrears of honorarium from the financial year 2010-11 until the financial year till he retired, in accordance with the Corporation's order dated 5th July, 2011 together with 6% interest due from the date that each year's honorarium fell due until payment. 18. There shall be no order is to costs.