Kamla Kohli v. State of Punjab an njab and others
Case Details
CWP-4074-200 2007 (O&M) - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ IN T AT CHANDIGAR PUNJAB & HARYANA IGARH 1027 CWP-4074-2007 (O&M) .2025 Date of decision: 02.05.2025 Kamla Kohli ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab an njab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON
Legal Reasoning
The Division Bench of this Court in The ourt in State of Haryana and anothe nother vs. Pardeep Nar Narayan, LPA-1629-2023, decided ecided on 06.11.2023, which followe ollowed the judgment of H nt of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in . Dhir, urt in State of Punjab vs. B.K. Dhir (2017) 9 SCC 337 CC 337; State of Haryana vs. Sita R ita Ram, LPA-1491-2016, decided o ided on 27.11.2019, again , against which SLP stands dismissed issed on 10.10.2022; State of Punja Punjab and another vs. er vs. Dharam Pal, (2017) 9 SCC 395 C 395; Raj Kumar Singh vs. Punja Punjab Mandi Board a ard and others, CWP-128-1993, de 93, decided on 17.07.2014; Subhas ubhash Chander vs. Sta s. State of Haryana and others, 201 , 2012(1) SCT 603 and Pritam Sing Singh ASHOK KUMAR 2025.05.02 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-4074-200 2007 (O&M) - 2- Dhaliwal vs. Stat s. State of Punjab, 2004 (4) SCT 403 T 403. 4. In Pa Pardeep Narayan (supra), where wherein the petitioner was mandated t dated to perform the duti e duties of a superior position with without any entitlement to financia ancial benefits, the Divi e Division Bench had propounded thu ed thus: till he ndation d order uty and d given (colly) er post er cadre regular er post of the ies of a he respondent was assigned duties of “4. As is evident that the resp its own rtment against a vacant post on its ow higher post by the Department role to play whatsoever in the same e same, volition, he having no role t District of three years on the post of Distric which was for a period of th age of the age o retired on attaining retire Commander, entitled ith a caveat that he shall not be entitle superannuation, albeit with a c rity of the said post. to the pay-scale or seniority of is said to have received commendatio 5. The respondent, who is said ion of maintenance of law and orde certificates in recognition of ness, industry and devotion to duty an displaying address acuteness, i ith Home Guards, Haryana and give his active cooperation with H er of occasion, Annexures A-1 (colly cash reward on a number of t petition, vacancy for the higher pos appended with the writ petiti eing the senior most in the feeder cadr being available and he being th f considering him for grant of regula but ironically instead of cons e to perform duties of the higher pos promotion, he was made to p enefit thereof. It is a clear case of th without any financial benefit wrong. Department being in the wrong no estoppel against law. 6. It is trite that there is no esto of the vass non-entitlement to the pay of th 7. An endeavour to canvass n to be t of the condition, is required to b higher post on account of t ploitary and incorporated by the State e State, deprecated, it being exploitar nt position. Needless to say that th hat the which is in a dominant pos ceable. nilateral and therefore not enforceable aforesaid decision was unilater Punjab refer to the dictum in State of Punja 8. Gainful it would be to refer nsically ) 9 SCC 337, which is intrinsicall vs. B.K. Dhir, (2017) 9 S pondent nt facts inasmuch as, the responden applicable to the present fac fficiate e salary while having made to officiat therein was not paid the salar t while ein Hon’ble the Supreme Court whil on a higher post, wherein Ho h Court the Division Bench of the High Cou affirming the order of the Di to pay cumbent upon the Department to pa observed that it was incumbe id post, eriod he had worked on the said pos him the salary for the period d do so posed in the order that he would do s despite the condition imposed ments. without any extra emoluments nsequence of the afore-discussion, w 9. As a fall out and conseque nt was rightly allowed the benefit o find that the respondent was e performed duties on the higher pos salary for the period he perfo tion incorporated as an impediment t regardless of any condition in his cause.” ion, we nefit of er post, ment to 5. The pertinent excerpt from the ratio The e ratio of the law as laid down by th by the Full Bench of this of this Court in Subhash Chander der (supra) reads thus: ASHOK KUMAR 2025.05.02 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-4074-200 2007 (O&M) - 3- “12. A close examination of show that once a person like independent charge of a post duties and responsibilities of attaching to the post held by holds a lien or would have suspended, then he is entitled is regarded to involve assumpt of greater importance if it carr on which he holds the lien. In the post of Accountant is low Secretary. 13. It has come on record tha was given the charge of the Committee, Ratia on 02.1 aforesaid charge was given to h requiring him to work as A words, it was not additional charge of the post of Secreta within the principle emerging would be entitled to higher pa because the post of Secretary assumption of duties and respo than those attaching to the po petitioner had held the lien. conditions being in the line of most Accountant and would h of his seniority. Merely becau charge of the higher post witho result into deprivation of hig assumed the charge. 14. We wish to make it clear would not cover a case where a is given to an employee worki of administrative exigency re post. For illustration, if the p feeder cadre for promotion to Engineer then on vacancy c promotion etc., the promotio available at the station on t Engineer would not earn him fortuitous circumstance unless claim for regular promotion. T laid down by their Lordships' the case of Ramakant Shripad India, 1993(3) S.C.T 586: 1991 15. We are further of the vi would virtually sound like judgment of Hon'ble the Supr State of Haryana, AIR 19 case, an employee in the State ion of Rule 4.13 of the Rules woul on like the petitioner has been give a post, which involves assumption o ies of greater importance than the on ld by such an employee on which h have held his lien had it not bee titled to pay of the higher post. A pos ssumption of duties and responsibilitie it carries higher pay scale than the on en. In the present case, the pay scale o is lower than that of the post of th would n given tion of the one hich he ot been A post ibilities the one scale of of the rd that the petitioner Subhash Chande f the post of Secretary of Municipa 02.11.1996/11.12.1996 (P-1). Th en to him against a vacant post withou as Accountant in addition. In othe tional charge but was an independen ecretary. Therefore, it is evident tha erging from Rule 4.13 of the Rules, h her pay scale of the post of Secretar cretary nas to be considered involvin d responsibilities of greater importanc he post of Accountant on which th lien. The petitioner also fulfilled th ine of promotion because he was senio ould have been promoted on the basi because he has been given officiatin t without regular promotion, would no of higher salary from the date he ha hander nicipal ). The without n other pendent ent that ules, he ecretary volving ortance ich the lled the s senior e basis iciating uld not he has n by us motion account higher cer is a ecutive eath or Officer ecutive it is a take his as been ourt in n of it clear that the Rules laid down by u here a fortuitous officiating promotio working in the lower cadre on accoun ncy resulting in vacancy of a highe the post of Sub Division Officer is to the post of Assistant Executiv ancy caused by retirement, death o omotion of the Sub Division Office on the post of Assistant Executiv n him higher pay scale because it is unless he is senior enough to stake hi tion. The aforesaid principle has bee ships' of Hon'ble the Supreme Court i hripad Sinai Advalpalkar v. Union o 6: 1991 (Suppl. 2) SCC 733. e Rules the view that Rule 4.13 of the Rule in the like the principle laid down in th e Supreme Court in Smt. P. Grover v over v. In that 1983 Supreme Court 1060. In tha motion State of Haryana was given promotio ASHOK KUMAR 2025.05.02 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-4074-200 2007 (O&M) - 4- as acting District Education O superannuation. The order giv District Education Officer rec draw salary in her own pay s would continue to be that o Secondary School. Accordingl Supreme Court accepted the c principles laid down in Rule applied. The concluding para o "3. We mentioned that District Education Off 1976. The order of p condition that she woul apparently meant that s salary on her pay scale order was extending he acting District Educatio added condition that her maximum of the princi that having been promo and there was no justif her. A writ petition fil High Court of Punjab a by way of special le Constitution. The count Government of Haryan for denying the pay of D P. Grover after she w Education Officer. All affidavit was that there and therefore she was no District Education Offic the reason given in promoted to the post Class-I post, on an acti invited to any Rule whi Acting basis would no the pay of the post. In t such refusal to pay to post the salary of such h rule would be doubtful Smt. Grover is entitled Education Officer from post, that is, July 19, 19 on August 31, 1980. Th with costs." fore her tion Officer about two years before he acting der giving her promotion as an actin was to cer recited a condition that she was t er scale pay scale which meant that her scal Higher that of the post of Principal, Highe 'ble the rdingly, their Lordships' of Hon'ble th s if the d the claim of Smt. P. Grover as if th n Rule 4.13 of the Rules have bee e been nder : para of the judgment reads as under : acting d that she was promoted as an actin n Officer with effect from July 19 uly 19, eradded of promotion contained a superadde e which would draw her own pay scale whic raw her that she would continue to draw he e initial y scale prior to promotion. The initia was an ing her services recited that she was a a super ucation Officer, but contained a supe han the hat her pay would not be more than th claims principal's grade. Smt. Grover claim Officer promoted as District Education Office ame to justification for denying the same t by the ion filed by her was dismissed by th fore us njab and Haryana and she is before u of the ial leave under Article 136 of th f of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of th lanation aryana offers no rational explanatio to Smt. ay of District Education Officer to Sm she was promoted to act as Distric District ounter- r. All that was said in the counter vailable t there was no Class-I posts availabl alary of was not entitled to be paid the salary o erstand n Officer. We, are unable to understan he was n in the counter-affidavit. She wa fficer a post of District Education Officer was not an acting basis. Our, attention was no n on an le which provides that promotion on a oted to ld not entitle the officer promoted t stifying st. In the absence of any rule justifyin higher ay to an officer promoted to a highe f such a such higher post (the validity of such old that ubtful if it existed), we must hold tha District ntitled be paid the salary of a Distric d to the r from the date she was promoted to th service 19, 1976, until she retired from servic allowed The appeal is accordingly, allowe 16. The argument of learne judgment rendered in R.K. Ag require any detail considerat dispute concerning seniority o disputes concerning seniority learned State counsel based on th .K. Aggarwal's case (supra) would no sideration because there was seriou ority of the officers in the cases wher niority are involved. The officiatin on the uld not rious s where iciating ASHOK KUMAR 2025.05.02 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-4074-200 2007 (O&M) - 5- charge may not earn the fixatio on which the officer is offic case, there is no dispute of impressed with the argumen petitioner was charge-sheeted has to be taken into account o the salary is also required to b that date alone. The aforesaid for more than one reason. F discharging the duties on a 2.11.1996/11.12.1996 (P-1). I issued then it was at a s discharging his duties as Sec would have no effect insofar and the judgment in R.K. Agg no application. 17. In view of the above, the answered in affirmative and i appointed to officiate on a pos and responsibility of greater i the substantive post then he w his officiating post in higher g is held entitled to the higher assumed the charge of the consequential benefits includin fixed and the arrears of his pay when he has been officiati Municipal Committee. The pa within three months from the d of his order with all consequen the post fixation of higher pay scale for the pos present s officiating. However, in the presen lso not ute of such nature. We are also no 06, the ument that somewhere in 2006, th motion eeted and, therefore, regular promotio 10) and ount only from 27.10.2008 (P-10) an de from ed to be fixed in the higher grade from rejected resaid argument is liable to be rejecte s been son. Firstly, the petitioner has bee w.e.f. on a higher post of Secretary w.e. 06 was 1). If any, charge-sheet in 2006 wa er was t a stage when the petitioner wa gument as Secretary, therefore, the argumen ncerned sofar as the present case is concerne ld have . Aggarwal's case (supra) would hav o. 1 is e, the question posed in para No. 1 i oyee is and it is held that if an employee i f duties a post involving assumption of dutie hing to ater importance than those attaching t alary of n he would be entitled to the salary o titioner gher grade. Accordingly, the petitione he has igher pay scale from the date he ha ith all of the post of Secretary with a y be re- cluding promotion. His pay may be re the date is pay shall be calculated from the dat fficiating on the post of Secretary cretary, e made The payment of arrears shall be mad ed copy the date of receipt of a certified cop sequential benefits.” 6. Lear earned State counsel, despite bes ite best efforts, has not been able t able to controvert as rega as regards the factual position and dr and draw out any distinctive aspects i pects in the aforementione ntioned judgments or cite any contrary ontrary law. 7. The petition is disposed of in te The in terms of Pardeep Narayan an and Subhash Chande hander (supra). (AM (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 02.05.2025 ashok Whether sp Whether re ther speaking/reasoned ther reportable : : Yes / No Yes / No ASHOK KUMAR 2025.05.02 18:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Arguments
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN MAN CHAUDHARY for Mr. Akshit Pathania, Advocate for Present : Mr. A for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for t Mr. V ***** Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punja Mr. C ***** **** AUDHARY, J. (ORAL) AMAN CHAUD Punjab. 1. Prayer made in the present petition Pray tition is for directing the respondents t dents to release the pay s pay scale of the post of Administrat nistrative Officer to the petitioner an ner and arrear of pay and nefits. y and fix pension/pensionary benefits. 2. Learned counsel, on instructions from Lear ns from the petitioner, restricts claim t laim to the pay of highe higher post of Administrative-cum-Est Establishment Officer for the perio period she worked i.e. fr i.e. from 02.11.2001 to 31.05.2006, ti 006, till she retired and not for purpos purpose of fixation of pen of pension. 3.