Kamla Kohli v. State of Pb. and Ors

IN 1027

Kamla Kohli

State of Punjab CORAM: HO

Present : Mr

Mr

Mr

*** AMAN CHAUD

1.

Pra release the pay arrear of pay and

2.

Lea the pay of highe she worked i.e. of fixation of pe

3.

vs. Pardeep Na the judgment of

(2017) 9 SCC 3

27.11.2019, aga and another vs Mandi Board Chander vs. St

THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIGA

Versus and others

ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN

***** r. Akshit Pathania, Advocate for r. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for r. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punj *** DHARY, J. (ORAL) ayer made in the present petition scale of the post of Administr d fix pension/pensionary benefit arned counsel, on instructions fro er post of Administrative-cum-E from 02.11.2001 to 31.05.2006, ension. e Division Bench of this Court i arayan, LPA-1629-2023, decide f Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 37; State of Haryana vs. Sita R ainst which SLP stands dismisse s. Dharam Pal, (2017) 9 SCC 39 and others, CWP-128-1993, tate of Haryana and others, 20 NJAB & HARYANA ARH Date of decision: 02.05.202 ...Petitioner ...Respondents N CHAUDHARY

r the petitioner. jab. n is for directing the respondents ative Officer to the petitioner a ts. om the petitioner, restricts claim stablishment Officer for the peri till she retired and not for purpo in State of Haryana and anoth ed on 06.11.2023, which follow n State of Punjab vs. B.K. Dh Ram, LPA-1491-2016, decided ed on 10.10.2022; State of Punj 95; Raj Kumar Singh vs. Punj decided on 17.07.2014; Subha 012(1) SCT 603 and Pritam Sin

s to m to iod ose wed hir, on jab jab ash Dhaliwal vs. St

4.

In P perform the du benefits, the Di

5.

Full Bench of th

tate of Punjab, 2004 (4) SCT 40 Pardeep Narayan (supra), wher uties of a superior position wit ivision Bench had propounded th "4. As is evident that the re higher post by the Departme volition, he having no role which was for a period of t Commander, till he reti superannuation, albeit with a to the pay-scale or seniority o

¶5The respondent, who is sa certificates in recognition o displaying address acuteness his active cooperation with H cash reward on a number of appended with the writ peti being available and he being but ironically instead of con promotion, he was made to without any financial benefi Department being in the wro

¶6It is trite that there is no es

¶7An endeavour to canvass higher post on account of deprecated, it being exploita which is in a dominant po aforesaid decision was unilat

¶8Gainful it would be to refe vs. B.K. Dhir, (2017) 9 applicable to the present fa therein was not paid the sala on a higher post, wherein H affirming the order of the D observed that it was incumb him the salary for the period despite the condition impose without any extra emolumen

¶9As a fall out and conseq find that the respondent w salary for the period he per regardless of any condition his cause." e pertinent excerpt from the rat his Court in Subhash Chander

¶03rein the petitioner was mandated thout any entitlement to financ hus: spondent was assigned duties o ent against a vacant post on its ow to play whatsoever in the sam three years on the post of Distr red on attaining the age a caveat that he shall not be entitl of the said post. aid to have received commendati of maintenance of law and ord s, industry and devotion to duty a Home Guards, Haryana and giv f occasion, Annexures A-1 (col ition, vacancy for the higher p the senior most in the feeder cad nsidering him for grant of regu perform duties of the higher p fit thereof. It is a clear case of t ong. stoppel against law. non-entitlement to the pay of t the condition, is required to ary and incorporated by the Sta osition. Needless to say that t teral and therefore not enforceab er to the dictum in State of Punj SCC 337, which is intrinsica facts inasmuch as, the respond ary while having made to offici Hon'ble the Supreme Court wh Division Bench of the High Co bent upon the Department to p d he had worked on the said po ed in the order that he would do nts. quence of the afore-discussion, was rightly allowed the benefit rformed duties on the higher po incorporated as an impediment tio of the law as laid down by t (supra) reads thus: d to cial of a wn me, rict of led der ven lly) dre ular be ate, ble. jab ally ate hile ourt pay ost, so we of ost,

"12. A close examination o show that once a person li independent charge of a po duties and responsibilities o attaching to the post held b holds a lien or would hav suspended, then he is entitled is regarded to involve assum of greater importance if it ca on which he holds the lien. In the post of Accountant is lo Secretary.

¶13It has come on record th was given the charge of th Committee, Ratia on 02 aforesaid charge was given to requiring him to work as words, it was not additiona charge of the post of Secre within the principle emergin would be entitled to higher because the post of Secretar assumption of duties and res than those attaching to the petitioner had held the lien conditions being in the line o most Accountant and would of his seniority. Merely beca charge of the higher post wit result into deprivation of hi assumed the charge.

¶14We wish to make it cle would not cover a case where is given to an employee work of administrative exigency post. For illustration, if the feeder cadre for promotion t Engineer then on vacancy promotion etc., the promot available at the station on Engineer would not earn him fortuitous circumstance unles claim for regular promotion. laid down by their Lordships the case of Ramakant Shrip India, 1993(3) S.C.T 586: 19

¶15We are further of the v would virtually sound like judgment of Hon'ble the Sup State of Haryana, AIR 19 case, an employee in the Stat of Rule 4.13 of the Rules wou ike the petitioner has been giv ost, which involves assumption f greater importance than the o y such an employee on which ve held his lien had it not be d to pay of the higher post. A p mption of duties and responsibilit arries higher pay scale than the o n the present case, the pay scale ower than that of the post of t hat the petitioner Subhash Chand he post of Secretary of Municip .11.1996/11.12.1996 (P-1). T o him against a vacant post witho Accountant in addition. In oth al charge but was an independ etary. Therefore, it is evident th ng from Rule 4.13 of the Rules, pay scale of the post of Secreta ry nas to be considered involvi sponsibilities of greater importan post of Accountant on which t . The petitioner also fulfilled t of promotion because he was sen have been promoted on the ba ause he has been given officiati thout regular promotion, would n igher salary from the date he h ear that the Rules laid down by e a fortuitous officiating promoti king in the lower cadre on accou resulting in vacancy of a high post of Sub Division Officer i to the post of Assistant Executi caused by retirement, death tion of the Sub Division Offi the post of Assistant Executi m higher pay scale because it i ss he is senior enough to stake . The aforesaid principle has be s' of Hon'ble the Supreme Court ad Sinai Advalpalkar v. Union 91 (Suppl. 2) SCC 733. view that Rule 4.13 of the Ru e the principle laid down in t preme Court in Smt. P. Grover 983 Supreme Court 1060. In th te of Haryana was given promoti uld ven of one he ties one e of der pal out hat he ary ing nce nior asis ing has us unt s a ive or cer ive s a his t in of ules r v.

as acting District Education superannuation. The order g District Education Officer re draw salary in her own pay would continue to be that Secondary School. Accordin Supreme Court accepted the principles laid down in Ru applied. The concluding para "3. We mentioned tha District Education O 1976. The order of p condition that she wou apparently meant that salary on her pay sca order was extending h acting District Educat added condition that h maximum of the prin that having been prom and there was no just her. A writ petition f High Court of Punjab by way of special Constitution. The coun Government of Harya for denying the pay of P. Grover after she Education Officer. A affidavit was that the and therefore she was District Education Off the reason given in promoted to the post Class-I post, on an ac invited to any Rule wh Acting basis would n the pay of the post. In such refusal to pay to post the salary of such rule would be doubtfu Smt. Grover is entitle Education Officer from post, that is, July 19, 1 on August 31, 1980. T with costs."

¶16The argument of learn judgment rendered in R.K. A require any detail consider dispute concerning seniority disputes concerning seniori Officer about two years before h giving her promotion as an acti ecited a condition that she was y scale which meant that her sc of the post of Principal, High ngly, their Lordships' of Hon'ble t e claim of Smt. P. Grover as if t ule 4.13 of the Rules have be a of the judgment reads as under at she was promoted as an acti Officer with effect from July promotion contained a superadd uld draw her own pay scale whi t she would continue to draw h ale prior to promotion. The init her services recited that she was tion Officer, but contained a sup her pay would not be more than t ncipal's grade. Smt. Grover clai moted as District Education Offi tification for denying the same filed by her was dismissed by t and Haryana and she is before leave under Article 136 of t nter-affidavit filed on behalf of t ana offers no rational explanati f District Education Officer to Sm was promoted to act as Distr All that was said in the count ere was no Class-I posts availab not entitled to be paid the salary ficer. We, are unable to understa n the counter-affidavit. She w t of District Education Officer cting basis. Our, attention was n hich provides that promotion on not entitle the officer promoted n the absence of any rule justifyi o an officer promoted to a high h higher post (the validity of such ul if it existed), we must hold th ed be paid the salary of a Distr m the date she was promoted to t 1976, until she retired from serv The appeal is accordingly, allow ned State counsel based on t Aggarwal's case (supra) would n ration because there was serio of the officers in the cases wh ity are involved. The officiati ing to ale : ing 19, ded ich tial an per ms cer to us mt. rict ter-ble y of was r a an to ing h a hat rict vice wed ous ere

6.

Lea controvert as re the aforemention

7.

Subhash Chand

02.05.2025 ashok

Whether s

Whether r

charge may not earn the fixat on which the officer is off case, there is no dispute o impressed with the argume petitioner was charge-sheeted has to be taken into account the salary is also required to that date alone. The aforesai for more than one reason. discharging the duties on a

2.11.1996/11.12.1996 (P-1). issued then it was at a discharging his duties as S would have no effect insofar and the judgment in R.K. Ag no application.

¶17In view of the above, th answered in affirmative and appointed to officiate on a p and responsibility of greater the substantive post then he his officiating post in higher is held entitled to the highe assumed the charge of t consequential benefits includ fixed and the arrears of his pa when he has been officia Municipal Committee. The p within three months from the of his order with all conseque arned State counsel, despite b egards the factual position and d ned judgments or cite any contra e petition is disposed of in t der (supra).

(A

speaking/reasoned

: reportable

: tion of higher pay scale for the p ficiating. However, in the pres of such nature. We are also n ent that somewhere in 2006, t d and, therefore, regular promoti t only from 27.10.2008 (P-10) a be fixed in the higher grade fro d argument is liable to be reject Firstly, the petitioner has be a higher post of Secretary w.e If any, charge-sheet in 2006 w stage when the petitioner w Secretary, therefore, the argume r as the present case is concern ggarwal's case (supra) would ha he question posed in para No. 1 d it is held that if an employee ost involving assumption of dut importance than those attaching would be entitled to the salary grade. Accordingly, the petition er pay scale from the date he h the post of Secretary with ding promotion. His pay may be ay shall be calculated from the d ating on the post of Secreta payment of arrears shall be ma e date of receipt of a certified co ential benefits." est efforts, has not been able draw out any distinctive aspects ary law. terms of Pardeep Narayan a AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE om ted e.f. was was ned ave 1 is e is ties g to of ner has all re-date ary, ade opy to