SMT. P. GROVER versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 654 · Decided: 18-08-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
n 
c 
D 
E 
F 
H 
'654 
SMT. P. GROVER 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. 
August 18, 1983 
(0. CH!NNAPPA REDDY AND E. S. Vb"NKATARAMIAH, JJ.) 
Civil Strvice-Can a person promoted to a post on act1'ng basis be denied 
the benefit of the scale of pay altached to the post? 
• 
The appellant was promoted as an acting District Educcltion Officer but 
1
the order of promotio.Q. contained a super-added condition that she would 
continue to draw her ·salary in her existing scale· of pay as a teacher. She 
filed a writ petition contending that she was entitled to the pay of a District 
Education Officer but the same was dismissed by the.High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, 
~ELD : The counter affidavit filed 'on behalf of the Government of 
Haryana offers no rational explanation for Jenying the pay of District Edu-
cation Officer to the appellant after she· was promoted to act as District 
Education Officer. In the absence of any rule justifying such refusal to pay 
to an officer promoted to a higher post the salary of such higher post, the 
appellant is entitled to be paid the salary of a District Education Officer fron1 
the date she was promoted to the post [655 F-G] 
· 
CIVIL t\PPELLATE JURISDICTION : 
1983. 
Civil Appeal No. 6229 of . ~ 
Appeal by Special leave from the .Judgment aud Order dated 
the 29th May, 1980 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 
C.W ,P. No. 1225 of\980. 
c 
KG, Bhagat, Addi, Soliciter General and K. K, Mohan for the 
appellant. 
R N. Poddar For the Respondent. 
•The Judgment of the Court was delivered by : 
CHINNApPA REDDY' l 
Special leave grante4, 
!
• 
I 
p, GROVER v. HARYANA ( Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 
65~ 
Smt. P. Grover was an outstanding teacher. In 1968-69, the 
Government of Haryana honoured her by presenting the State Award 
for teachers. She attained the age of superannuation on August 20, 
. 1978. About two years before she attained the age of superannuation, 
she was promoted .as acting District Education Officer with effect 
from July 19, 1976. The Government of Haryana had taken a policy 
decision as early as in 1965 that the Services of teachers, who had 
received the National or State Awards, should be extended until they 
attained the· age of 60 years, on au year by year basis, if their service 
record continued to be .good otherwise. Pursuant to the policy 
decision, Smt. Grover's services were extended first by ·one year and 
later by another year. During the period of extension of service, 
she worked as Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, 
Mahendergarh. She finally retired from service on August 31, 1980. 
We mentioned that she was promoted as an acting District 
Education Officer with effect from July 19, 1976. The order of 
promotion contained a super-added condition that she would draw 
her own pay scale' which apparently meant that she would continue 
. to draw her salary on her pay scale prior to promotion. The initial 
order extending her services recited that she was an acting District 
Education Officer, but contained a super-added condition _that her 
pay would not be more than the maximum of the Principal's grade. 
Smt. Grover claims that having been promoted as District Education 
Officer, she was entitled to the pay of a District Education Officer 
and there was no justification for denying the same to her. A writ 
petition filed by her was dismissed by the High Court of Punjab and 
Haryana and she is before µs by way of special leave under Art. 136 
of the Constitntion. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 
Government of Haryana offers no rational explanation for denying 
the pay of District Education Officer to Smt. P. Grover after she was 
promoted to ace as District Education Officer. All that was said in 
the counter-affidavit was that there were no Class-I post available . 
and therefore, she was not entitled to be paid the salary of District 
Education Officer. 
We are unable to understand the reason given in 
the counter-affidavit. She was promoted to the post of District 
Education Officer, a Class-I post, on an acting basis. Our. attention 
was not invited to any rule which provides that promotion on an 
acting basis would riot entitle the officer promoted to the pay of the 
post. In the absence of any rule justifying such refusal to pay to an 
Qfficer promoted to a ltigher post the salary Qf s11ch hi(lher post (th~ 
A 
.B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
B 
. 656 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1983] 3 s.c.R. 
validity of such a rule would be doubtful if it e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.