LexTHE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER versus . DHARAM PAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 569 THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER v . . DHARAM PAL (Civil Appeal No. 1549 of2011) SEPTEMBER 05, 2017 [DIPAK MISRA, C.Jl. A. M. KHANWlLKAR AND D~. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] Service Law: A B Officiating appointment - On the higher posts - Financial C benefit - Entitlement - Respondent-employee given o(ficiating appointment on regular basis -As per the office orders. the employee Was not entitled to financial benefits of the higher qlficiating post - Writ petition by the employee seeking financial benefits of the higher officiating posts - Allowed by High Court - On appeal. held: As D per rules 4.13. 4.22 and 4.24 of Punjab Civil Services Rule.~. the· employee was entitled to financial benefits of higher officiating posts - Punjab Civil Services Rules - rr. 4. I 3. 4.12 and 4.24. · Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 On the basis of the order dated 9.12.2004, the respondent functioned as the official Superintendent Grade II. While he was officiating on the said post, he was promoted on officiating basis to function in the post of Superintendent Grade I by order dated 26.5.2007.The orders dated 09.12.2004 and 26.05.2007 stipulated that the respondent official will work in his own pay scale and his officiating promotion would be subject to the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee and on the approval of the Committee, he shall be given the financial benefits. The said orders have to be tested on the. anvil E F of the Rules. H the orders are in consonance with the Rules indubitably the respondent cannot put forth a claim unless the G Rules arc declared unconstitutional. [Paras 7-9] [573-F-H; 574- A-B] 2. Ruic 4.13 of Punjab Civil Services Rules postulates that the Government employee appointed to an officiating post shall not draw pay higher than his substantive pay in respect of a H 569 570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R. A permanent post unless the post in which he is appointed to officiate is one enumerated in the Schedule to the Rules and further the officiating appointment involves assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attached to the post. It is not in dispute that the posts of Superintendent Grade 11 and Grade I arc covered under the Schedule. The extension of B benefit is subject to the provisions of Rules 4.22 and 4.24. Rules 4.22 and 4.24 categorically convey that the employee who holds the higher post must fulfil the requisite qualifications and conditions for service for both the posts. It is not controvcred that the respondent was eligible to hold the post of Superintendent C Grade II and Grade I. In the instant case, the Rules do not prohibit grant of pay scale. [Paras 10, 12 and 22] (575-A-C, F-G; 581-A] D E F G H 3. By an incorporation in the order or merely by giving an . undertaking in all circumstances would not debar an employee to claim the benefits of the officiating position. [Para 22] (581-B] Pritam Singh Dhaliwal ~: State of Puf!jah and another 2004 (4) RSJ 599; Smt. P Grover v. State of Hmyana . and another AIR 1983 SC 1060 : (19831 3 SCR 654 - relied on. State <~l Haryana and another v. Tilak Raj and others (2003) 6 sec 123 : [20031 1 Suppl. SCR 522; S.C. Chandra and others v. State of .Jharkhand and other (2007) s sec· 279 : 120011 9 SCR 130 - held inapplicable. A. Francis v. Management of Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited. Tamil Nadu (2014) 13 SCC 283 - distinguished. Selvaraj v. Lt. Governor of Island, Port Blair and others 1999 (2) SCT 286; Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer. Chandigarh v. Hari Om Sharma and others (1998) 5 SCC 87 : [19981 3 SCR 99 - referred to. Case Law Reference 2004 (4) RSJ 599 (2003) 1 Suppl. SCR 522 relied on relied on Para 1 Para5 THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER v. DHARAM PAL 571 (2007) 9 SCR 130 held inapplicable Para 5 · (2014) 13 sec 283 distinguished Para5 (1983) 3 SCR 654 relied on Para 14 . 1999 (2) · SCT 286 referred to Para 14 [1998) 3 S.CR 99 referred to Para 18 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1549 of201 l. From the Judgment and final Order dated 20.08.2008 passed by A B the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C. W.P. No.18843 C of2007. Ms. Uttara Babbar, Ms. Akanksha Choudhary, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Ad vs. for the Appellants R. K. Kapoor. Ms. Kheyali, Rajat Kapoor, Ms. Shweta Kapoor, Anis Ahmed Khan, Sudarshan Singh Rawat, Advs. fo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.