Prolonged in-charge postings entitle an employee to the difference of salary, and an unfair and unreasonable contract in service jurisprudence cannot stand in the eye of law.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. Though the petitioner has approached this Court with multiple prayers, but during course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his argument only on the point that the petitioner should get the difference of salary for the period from 31.12.2013 to 5.2.2015 when he was working as in-charge Deputy Director (Drugs), Drugs Control Directorate, Ranchi (minus the benefits accrued on grant of 2nd MACP with effect from 20.5.2014) and from 5.2.2015 till his superannuation on 30.09.2021 when he was working as In-charge Joint Director, Drugs Control Directorate, Ranchi, as also the consequential pensionery benefits.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Drug Inspector on 19.5.1994. As per Jharkhand State Drug Control Service (Appointment & Service Condition) Rules, 2011, the Kalawadi for promotion to the next higher post in the cadre of the Drug Inspector was stipulated as five years for each post. However, the Government by Resolution contained in Memo No. 10483(3) dated 24.10.2014, relaxed the said Kalawadi to one year, provided the concern employee has completed 20 years of service and further if posts are vacant, the compulsion to continue working in the present held post for at least one year for promotion is not required and now it will be mandatory to take charge of each level of promotion and only after taking charge, promotion to the next level will be given. Thereafter, instead of granting promotion on regular basis, the petitioner was posted as In-charge Deputy Director (Drugs), Drugs Control Directorate, Ranchi by Notification No. 141(16) dated 31.12.2013 and subsequently by Notification No. 11(16) dated 5.2.2015 as Joint Director (Drugs), Durgs Control Directorate, Ranchi. However, during his posting as Joint Director, the petitioner was granted the benefit of 2nd MACP with effect from 20.5.2014 in the pay scale of Rs. 15,600-39,100/- Pay band-III, Grade Pay 7600, which is equivalent to pay scale of Deputy Director, by Notification No. 34(16) dated 7.4.2016.

4. It is further case of the petitioner that this petitioner along with others earlier moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3185 of 2013, with the grievance that they were not given regular promotion. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, formal order granting promotion to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Director (Drugs) was issued by Notification No. 223(16) dated 31.7.2019. Though the petitioner retired in the month of September, 2021 serving as Joint Director from 5.2.2015 itself, but his substantive post was of Assistant Director.

5. Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner confines his argument only on the point that petitioner should get the difference of salary for the period from 31.12.2013 to 5.2.2015 while he was working as in-charge Deputy Director (minus the benefits accrued on grant of 2nd MACP with effect from 20.5.2014) and likewise the petitioner is also entitled for the difference of salary from 5.2.2015 till 30.9.2021, when he was working as In-charge Joint Director and also to pay consequential pensionery benefits.

6. Learned counsel contended that now, the law is well settled that if any employee is working on any post, may not be on substantive posting, but he is entitled for the difference of salary if the incharge post is not an ad hoc arrangement and the petitioner worked from 31.12.2013 to 5.2.2015 as Deputy Director and further from 5.2.2015 till his retirement as Joint Director on In-charge basis, so it cannot be said to be an stop gap arrangement. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel places heavy reliance upon the decision in the case of Arindam Chattopadhyay & Ors. Vs. State of W.B. & Ors, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 152. Learned counsel also relies upon the decisions reported in 2013 vol.4 JLJR 306, 2013 vol.4 JLJR 308 and the order delivered in W.P.(S) No.1661 of 2010. To strengthen his argument, learned couns