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.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has come before this Court claiming fixation of salary on the post of Assistant Registrar as he submits that he was holding the post of Assistant Registrar since 2016 till he attained superannuation, and therefore, he was entitled to be fixed in the higher pay scale of Assistant Registrar in terms of Rule 4.13 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the post of Assistant Registrar was created in the office of the Advocate General on 04.12.2016 and the petitioner, who working as Superintendent Grade-I, was asked to look after the work of the Assistant Registrar also vide order dated 23.12.2016 and till he retired, he worked substantively on the post of Assistant Registrar, therefore, he is entitled to receive the salary. The office of the Advocate General also recommended for conducting of a regular DPC for the said post which was, however, not done.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies on the circular issued on 20.07.2011 in support of his contentions and has also relied on judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Karamjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab, CWP-28399-2013 decided on 17.09.2018 as well as on the judgment passed in the case of R.K. Rampal and Another v. State of Punjab, CWP-22569-2010 decided on 08.03.2017. He has also referred to the Full Bench judgment passed in the case of Subhash Chander v. State of Haryana and Others; 2012(1)SCT 603.

4. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and it would be apposite to find that Rule 4.13 operates in a field subject to provision of Rule 4.22 to 4.24. While principally, substantive pay of a Government employee would be in the time-scale of the post on which he holds the lien and there are certain exceptions carved out under the Punjab Civil Service Rules. When a Government employee is appointed to officiate on a higher post, which involves greater responsibility and duties, then the substantive post shall be entitled to receive the salary of the higher post, but 4.23 defines the meaning of the word officiating, which means that when a Government employee holds charge of the current duty of a post after being relieved of that of the substantive post, he officiates on that post. However, in terms of Rule 4.24, if he continues to hold current duty charge of his own substantive post as well as that of the another post, he does not officiate on the another post, and therefore, he is not entitled to the additional remuneration.

5. The Full Bench, after having considered the provision at length, has observed as under:-

"10. A perusal of the Rule 4.13 of the Rules would show that if officiating appointment involves the assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to the post on which an employee holds a lien or would have held a lien had his lien has not been suspended then he would draw pay higher than his substantive post in respect of a permanent post. Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 4.13 of the Rules makes it abundantly clear that the officiating appointment on a post is not to be regarded assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance if the post to which it is made is on the same scale of pay as the permanent post on which he holds lien. In other words, if the officiation is on a post carrying the same pay scale then it would not be considered to have duties and responsibilities of greater importance than attaching to the post, an employee is ho