IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.
Dr. Devinder Pal Singh Sehgal – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO. 1909 of 2019
Decided On : 28-02-2024
JUDGMENT
Aman Chaudhary, J.
The prayer in the present Civil Writ Petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for directing the respondents to grant the petitioner pay grade scale of Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, for the period he has worked and performed the duties of higher post as Assistant Director (Ballistics) FSL, Punjab.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner, who was working as Scientific Officer (Chemistry) was assigned additional charge as against a vacant post of Assistant Director (Ballistics) vide order dated 01.04.2008, Annexure P1 and thereafter, continued to perform the duties of the said higher post till 26.03.2012, Annexure P3 even after being regularly promoted as Assistant Director (Chemistry). Despite there not being any condition to the same in the order dated 01.04.2008, he has, however, not been granted financial benefit for performing additional duties on the higher post. He was entitled to be paid the salary for the said post in terms of Rule 4.22 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol-I (Part I), amendment vide Notification dated 14.12.2006, read with Section Sr. No.24 of Rule 15.1 of the Rules, as granted to a similarly placed officer-Balwinder Singh Bhundal, who was working as Deputy Director, Forensic Science Laboratory and was given the additional charge of higher post of Director vide order dated 02.07.2012, Annexure P9. But the claim of the petitioner for the same was rejected vide order dated 11.10.2018. Further submission is that 3 posts of Assistant Director in Forensic Science Laboratory stood upgraded as Deputy Director w.e.f 01.10.2011, in view of implementation of recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission, in the revised scale, which was not granted to the petitioner.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel states that as a stop gap arrangement, the petitioner was granted additional charge solely on a temporary basis for the smooth functioning of the division, without any financial gain, as has been referred to in Annexure R1.
4. Heard learned counsel on either side.
5. Pertinently in the instant case, the petitioner being the senior most in his cadre possessed the requisite qualification i.e. M.Sc Hon's and M.Phil in Chemistry and experience for the post of Assistant Director, both in ballistics as well as chemistry. Therefore, together with his own duties, the Department on an administrative basis, assigned him the additional charge of his promotional post of Assistant Director (Ballistics) w.e.f 01.04.2008, it being vacant, whereon he continued to work and thereafter was granted regular promotion as Assistant Director (Chemistry) w.e.f 26.03.2012, whereby he performed duties of two posts albeit without any emoluments for the additional duty. In this regard the resistance offered to non-entitlement was by attempting to canvas, based on the proposal dated 27.02.2008, for granting temporary charge to the petitioner for the post of Assistant Director (Ballistics), as he had previously worked as Scientific Assistant in Ballistics division for many years, in order to streamline the functioning of these divisions and to cut short the time used up in appearances before the Court of law, without financial gain. Be that as it may, in the order dated 01.04.2008, Annexure P-1, by which the additional charge was given to the petitioner, there was no such stipulation regarding non grant of financial benefits. Thus, depriving him of the pay grade scale and pay scale for the duration he served on the higher post, notably, in addition to the duties of the post held by him, can by no stretch be said to be justified, even if there had been any condition mentioned therein, as held in State of Punjab & another v. Dharam Pal, 2017 (9) SCC 395, wherein the respondent, who was officiating on higher posts and therefore performing the duties of a higher responsibility attached to the same, was held entitled to salary and pay scale of the said post
An employee performing duties of a higher post without explicit conditions against financial benefits is entitled to the pay scale of that post.
An employee officiating in a higher post is entitled to the salary for that position, regardless of any conditions stating non-entitlement to higher pay.
A government employee must hold an independent charge of a higher post involving greater responsibilities to be eligible for higher pay under relevant service rules.
Appointment to higher post with greater duties and responsibilities, evidenced by higher pay scale, entitles government servant to pay fixation under FR 22(I)(a)(1) with one increment, not FR 22(I)(a....
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.
An employee discharging duties of a higher post is entitled to pay and allowances for that position, regardless of the absence of formal promotion orders. Delay in processing claims does not nullify ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.