Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Kamlesh Bhasin vs Faridabad Complex Administration And ... on 31 July, 2014
Regular Second Appeal No. 1483 of 1990
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No. 1483 of 1990
DATE OF DECISION : July 31, 2014
Smt. Kamlesh Bhasin ...Appellant
Versus
Faridabad Complex Administration and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL
Present:- Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant.
***
M.JEYAPAUL, J.
1. The plaintiff who was non suited by the concurrent verdicts of the Courts below has preferred the present Second Appeal.
2. The plaintiff has alleged that she was appointed as a receptionist. The 1st defendant used to change the duties of the plaintiff with the duties of the 2nd defendant from time to time. The plaintiff's service as Clerk was regularised on 1.3.1979. The 2nd defendant was upgraded to the post of technical Assistant/telephone-cum-receptionist and was awarded the benefit for the period from 1.3.1978 to 31.3.1979 in the pre revised scales. PARVINDER SINGH 2014.08.06 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Regular Second Appeal No. 1483 of 1990 2 The plaintiff was ordered to work as a receptionist exclusively upto 9.1.1985. The plaintiff contends that the order passed by the 1stdefendat promoting the 2nd defendant to the post of technical Assistant/telephone-cum-receptionist was null and void. The plaintiff also claimed the benefits and arrears for the period from 1976 to 11.3.1980 as she worked jointly with the 2nd defendant as receptionist.
3. It is the contention of the 1st defendant that the plaintiff was appointed as substitute receptionist in the leave vacancy of Smt. Asha Kapoor from 6.11.1975 to 16.1.1976 and thereafter her services were terminated. The plaintiff was again appointed as a Clerk in the leave vacancy of Smt. Gaumti for a period of two months from 19.1.1976 to 18.3.1976. The plaintiff was again appointed as Diary and Dispatch Clerk on adhoc basis. On 23.7.1976 the service of the plaintiff was terminated. The plaintiff was again appointed as a Clerk on adhoc basis for a period of three months and thereafter her adhoc appointment was extended from time to time upto 28.2.1979. The plaintiff was asked to perform the duties of telephone operator as and when the 2nd defendant proceed on leave. The plaintiff was granted extra allowance of `15 per month for assisting the telephone operator during lunch hours. The plaintiff was appointed as a Clerk on probation for a period of two years from 1.3.1979. The 2nd defendant was promoted to the post of Assistant telephone operator- cum-receptionist. The plaintiff was never appointed against the post of telephone operator-cum-receptionist or Assistant telephone PARVINDER SINGH 2014.08.06 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Regular Second Appeal No. 1483 of 1990 3 operator-cum-receptionist. As the plaintiff never worked in the above post she was not entitled to any allowance.
4. Both the Courts have held that the plaintiff who was not appointed to the post of telephone operator-cum-receptionist cannot claim the benefits accorded to the 2nd defendant who was promoted to the upgraded post of Assistant telephone operator-cum- receptionist. The plaintiff being the Clerk had served only during lunch recess performing the duty of the 2nd defendant and got extra allowance of `15 per month. Therefore, the Courts below have held that there was no merit in the plea of the plaintiff.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/appellant would vehemently submit that the plaintiff who was performing the duties of telephone operator in the place of 2nd defendant was entitled to get all the benefits accorded to the 2nd defendant. He also referred to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in CWP No. 21358 of 2008 dated 20.12.2011 (Subhash Chander versus State of Haryana and others) to substantiate his plea that the plaintiff was entitled to the benefits of the 2nd defendant as the plaintiff discharged the duties of the 2nd defendant.
6. Factually it is found that the plaintiff was appointed only as a Clerk. There was no evidence to establish that she was appointed against the post of telephone operator-cum-receptionist. Whereas, it is the admitted position that the 2nd defendant was originally appointed as telephone operator-cum-receptionist and, thereafter, she was promoted to the post of Assistant telephone PARVINDER SINGH 2014.08.06 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Regular Second Appeal No. 1483 of 1990 4 operator-cum-receptionist on upgradation of the post of telephone operator-cum-receptionist. The plaintiff had assigned the telephone operator job only during lunch hours when the 2nd defendant had to be away availing the lunch hour. There is no evidence to show that the plaintiff ever officiated the post of telephone operator-cum- receptionist. She had not been promoted to the cadre of Assistant telephone operator-cum-receptionist.
7. The employee who was appointed as a Clerk and was asked to assist another technical employee during lunch recess and got extra allowance for discharging extra duty cannot claim benefits of a technical staff who was promoted to a higher post. In my view, the claim of the plaintiff is totally unjustifiable. The plaintiff cannot seek parity of service benefits with a technical staff who was appointed to a technical post and was later on to a upgraded post in the same line. The Full Bench decision of this Court referred to above would apply only in a case where the employee was specifically appointed to officiate a post involving assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attaching to the substantive post. In the instant case there was no order produced by the plaintiff to show that she was appointed to officiate the post of telephone operator-cum- receptionist. Therefore, the aforesaid decision also would not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case.
8. I find that the Courts below have rightly evaluated the evidence on record and dismissed the plea of the plaintiff. No PARVINDER SINGH 2014.08.06 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Regular Second Appeal No. 1483 of 1990 5 substantial question of law has arisen for determination. There is no merit in the appeal. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed.
(M. JEYAPAUL) JUDGE July 31, 2014 p.singh PARVINDER SINGH 2014.08.06 14:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh