An employee discharging duties of a higher post is entitled to the salary for that post, and the imposition of a rider disallowing the salary may be in violation of constitutional rights.

SATYENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, J.--Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the opposite parties. Through this petition, the petitioner has challenged the condition imposed in the order dated 26.5.1997 disallowing the salary of the post of AC Plant Engineer to the petitioner although it is submitted that the petitioner was redesignated and allowed to work on the said post under the garb of re-designation.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Electrician cum AIC Mechanic in the Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Akademi, Fursatganj, District Rae Bareli ( herein after referred to as the 'Akademi') on 29.2.1988 in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/-. It is stated that in the year 1993 the petitioner was deputed on account of his good work on AIC Plant. It is submitted that the petitioner contiimed to work on the post of AC Plant Mechanic but ultimately on 26.5.1997 there was re-designation of the post of the petitioner as AC Plant Engineer and the petitioner was deputed to work on the said post having been re-designated as AC Plant Engineer. After the said re-designation, it is stated that the petitioner started discharging his duties on the post of AC Plant Engineer with rider in the order dated 26.5.1997, wherein it was provided that there will be no change in the pay scale and other allowances owing to re-designation. The said rider was imposed with a view to deny the salary to the petitioner for the post of AC Plant Engineer for which he was deputed to work. After imposition of the said rider the petitioner made several representations but the said representations were not paid any heed and ultimately the representation of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 21.2.2000 (Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition) upholding the validity of the said rider and also indicating that Finance Committee constituted by the Ministry of Civil Aviation has re-designated the petitioner as AC Plant Engineer without any change in the pay scale with prior approval of the Governing Council. The said order has been subjected to challenge in the present writ petition.

3. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that after the post of AC Plant Engineer was abolished in the Akademi, the petitioner was entrusted the duties of AC Plant Engineer in the year 1997 and since then he is discarding the duties of AC Plant Engineer efficiently without any officer over and above to him as AC Plant Engineer. It is submitted that the said re-designation was done with a view to fill up the gap and the vacuum created by the AC Plant Engineer and thereby assigning the duties of the said post to the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is noting on record to indicate that the post of AC Plant Engineer was not continuing. In fact no person apart from the petitioner was working on the post of AC Plant Engineer after the regular incumbent Mahim Jain, who was working as AC Plant Engineer, has left the Akademi. The petitioner was deputed to look after the work of AC Plant in place of Mahim Jain and he was also posted as AC Plant Engineer with a rider that he will not be entitled to the salary of the post of AC Plant Engineer. His further submission is that the rider imposed by the opposite parties is illegal and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and it is an unlawful labour practice. The opposite parties are duty bound to pay salary to the petitioner of the post of AC Plant Engineer on which he is discharging his duties after ouster of Mahim Jain irrespective of the fact that he has no right on the post of AC Plant Engineer. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions to substantive his claim:

1. Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh v. Hari Om Sharma and others1.

2. Beena Mishra (Smt.) v. U.P. Development Systems Corporation Ltd. and another2.

3. Smt. P. Grover v. State of Haryana and another3.

1. 1998 (