Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab And Others vs Krishan Kumar Sharma on 18 January, 2012
Author: Ajay Kumar Mittal
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal
LPA No. 91 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 91 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: January, 18, 2012
State of Punjab and others
...Appellants
Versus
Krishan Kumar Sharma
..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. Jaskirat Singh Sidhu, Sr. Addl. A.G., Punjab
for the appellant.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest?
M.M. KUMAR, J.
1. The short issue raised in the present appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent by the State of Punjab is 'Whether the writ petitioner-respondent would be entitled to higher pay scale during the period, he was discharging the duties of the higher post'.
2. The matter is not rest integra and a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Subhash Chander v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 21358 of 2008 decided on 20.12.2011) has held that an employee who is given independent charge and responsibility of a higher post would be entitled to regular pay scale of such post without being substantively appointed. In the present case, the writ petitioner- LPA No. 91 of 2012 (O&M) -2- respondent was working on the post of Superintendent Grade I, which is a feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar (Examination) vide order dated 24.02.1998 the petitioner was posted as Assistant Registrar (Examination) with immediate effect in his own pay scale. He worked as such till his superannuation on 31.03.1999.
3. In the case of Subhash Chander (supra), a Full Bench of this Court made a detailed reference to Rule 4.13 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules (for brevity 'the Rules'), which postulates that if an appointment involves assumption of duties and responsibility of greater importance than those attaching to the post on which an employee holds a lien then he would draw pay higher than his substantive post. Referring to Sub-rule 2 of Rule 4.13 of the Rules the Full Bench had held that officiating appointment on a post is not to be regarded as assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance if the post on which an employee is officiating is in the same scale of pay as the permanent post on which he holds lien. In other words, if the officiation is on a post carrying the same pay scale then it would not be considered to have duties and responsibilities of greater importance than attaching to an employee is holding on a substantive basis. The Full Bench has also considered the effect of Rule 4.22 and 4.23 of the Rules. In para 12 of the Full Bench judgment, the following observations have been made:
"12. A close examination of Rule 4.13 of the Rules LPA No. 91 of 2012 (O&M) -3- would show that once a person like the petitioner has been given independent charge of a post, which involves assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance than the one attaching to the post held by such an employee on which he holds a lien or would have held his lien had it not been suspended, then he is entitled to pay of the higher post. A post is regarded to involve assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance if it carries higher pay scale than the one on which he holds the lien. In the present case, the pay scale of the post of Accountant is lower than that of the post of the Secretary."
3. In view of the above, we do not find any legal infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is wholly without merit and does not warrant admission. The same is hereby dismissed.
4. Keeping in view the dismissal of the appeal on merit, no orders are required to be passed on the application seeking condonation of delay of 151 days in filing of the appeal.
(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE January 18, 2012 Atul