242.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 21.04.2026 Ashok Kumar .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: Mr. Dharmender Singh Rawat, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab.

-----

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming the following reliefs:-

1) That a writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Sub Divisional Officer (Panchayati Raj) with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 11.09.2019 i.e from the date the additional charge of the post of Sub Divisional Officer (Panchayati Raj), Bathinda was granted to the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

(2) Further a writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued directing the respondent to grant the pay scale of the post of Sub Divisional Officer (Panchayati Raj) for the period the petitioner worked on the post of Sub Divisional Officer (Panchayati Raj) with all consequential benefits with 12%

interest per annum on the arrears.

2. Notice of motion in the present case was issued on 28.11.2023 and his claim for promotion was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has already attained superannuation.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that vide order dated 11.09.2019 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner was given the additional charge of the promotional post of Sub-Divisional Officer (Panchayati Raj) (for short, SDO (PR)), and he performed the duties on the said post till September, 2020, however, he was not granted the pay scale of the said post for the period he worked on the said post.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has performed the duties on the higher post, therefore, he is entitled for the grant of pay and allowances of the said post.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel, while referring to the averments made in para 3 of the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, submits that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer on 28.01.1993 and was given the additional charge of the post of SDO (PR), vide order dated 11.09.2019, wherein it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner has been given the additional charge without any additional emoluments. The said clause was never challenged by the petitioner at the time of joining to the additional charge of said SDO (PR). Consequently, he is estopped from agitating the said claim now.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner, who was working as Junior Engineer, was assigned the additional charge of the post of SDO (PR), vide order dated 11.09.2019 and he performed the duties on the said post till September, 2020, therefore, he cannot be denied the pay and allowances of the said post. The similar issue has already been considered by this Court in ‘Sukhpreet Singh and others Vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others’ 2024 NCPHHC 9924, wherein it has been held as under :-

“xx xx xx xx xx

8. The petitioners, who were working as Assistant Accounts Officers, have been posted against the posts of Accounts Officers after they had rendered service of more than

05 years as Assistant Accounts Officers. Once the petitioners have performed the duties of the posts of Accounts Officers, they cannot be denied the pay scale of the said post. The condition that the petitioners shall be placed in their own pay scale of Assistant Accounts Officer without any financial benefit is totally arbitrary and not sustainable.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment passed in Smt. P. Grover’s case (supra) has held that the officer promoted to higher post on acting basis is entitled to salary of such higher post. The relevant para of the said judgment reads as under :-

“3. We mentioned that she was promoted as an acting District Education officer with effect from July 19, 1976.

The order of promotion containe