Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pritpal Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Others on 30 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059305
2024:PHHC:059305
CM-7184-CWP-2024 in/and -1-
CWP-22248-2019
103+226
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CM-7184-CWP-2024 in/and
CWP-22248-2019
Date of decision: 30.04.2024
PRITPAL SINGH AND ORS. ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. R.K.Arora, Advocate with
Mr. Jugam Arora, Advocate for the non-applicant/petitioners.
Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Abhilaksh Gaind, Advocate and
Mr. Manvender Singh Sangwan, Advocate
for applicant/respondent No.3.
****
NAMIT KUMAR ,J. (ORAL)
CM-7184-CWP-2024
This is an application under Section 151 CPC for placing on record the
affidavit on behalf of respondent No.3.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed,
subject to all just exceptions. Affidavit on behalf of respondent No.3 is taken on
record.
Main case
1. In terms of order dated 07.03.2024, Sh. Sandeep Rishi, Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana is present in Court.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059305
2024:PHHC:059305
CM-7184-CWP-2024 in/and -2-
CWP-22248-2019
2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of
mandamus for directing the respondents to consider and grant regular
promotions/regularization on the post of Drivers in terms of the different
resolutions passed by the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana from time to time
including resolution No.297 dated 18.03.2016 (Annexure P-17) and also grant
the petitioners same benefit as allowed to the petitioners in CWP-14625-1998,
decided on 13.09.2013 (Annexure P-13), implemented vide order dated
06.01.2014 (Annexure P-14), including the benefit of relaxation of qualification
keeping in view the length of experience gained by the petitioners on the posts of
Drivers and also grant them all the consequential benefits. Further prayer has
been made for directing the respondents to grant the pay scale and emoluments
of the posts of Drivers for the period the petitioners have been performing their
duties as Drivers as detailed in Annexure P-1 along with the arrears.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that during the pendency
of the present petition, out of total 24 petitioners, 07 petitioners have already
been promoted to the post of Driver as per their seniority and the case of the
remaining petitioners shall also be considered for promotion on their turn as per
the relevant rules. With regard to the grant of pay and allowances on the post of
Driver on which the petitioners are performing their duties, it has been admitted
in the written statement as well as in the affidavit that the petitioners are
performing their duties on the post of Driver.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment passed in Smt. P. Grover
Vs. State of Haryana : 1983(4) SCC 291 has held that the officer promoted to
higher post on acting basis is entitled to salary of such higher post. The relevant
para of the said judgment reads as under :-
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059305
2024:PHHC:059305
CM-7184-CWP-2024 in/and -3-
CWP-22248-2019
"3. 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 us by way of special leave under Art. 136 of the
Constitution. 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 act 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 not
entitle the officer promoted to the pay of the post. 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 validity of such a rule
would be doubtful if it existed), we must hold that Smt. Grover is
entitled to be paid the salary of a District Education officer from the
date she was promoted to the post, that is, July 19, 1976, until she
retired from service on August 31, 1980. The appeal is accordingly
allowed with costs."
5. To the same effect is the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Vs. Hari Om Sharma : 1998
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059305
2024:PHHC:059305
CM-7184-CWP-2024 in/and -4-
CWP-22248-2019
AIR (SC) 2909. In the said case the employee was promoted as Junior Engineer-
I in stop-gap arrangement and he had given the undertaking that on the basis of
stop-gap arrangement, he would not claim promotion as of right nor would he
claim any benefit pertaining to that post. The said argument was rejected by
Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was held that the Government being model
employer cannot be permitted to make such an argument.
6. Similarly in the case of Selva Raj Vs. Lt. Governor of Island, Port
Blair : 1999(2) S.C.T. 286 the employee looked after the duties of higher post
and he worked though temporarily and in an officiating capacity, however, it was
held that he was entitled to draw salary attached to the higher post during the
time he actually worked on that post. To the same effect are the judgments
passed in State of Punjab and another Vs. Dharam Pal : 2017 AIR SC 4438;
Gurmej Singh Vs. State of Punjab : 1995 (3) S.C.T. 279; Balbir Singh Dalal
and others Vs. State of Haryana and another : 2002(4) S.C.T. 422 and
Pritam Singh Dhaliwal Vs. State of Punjab and another : 2004(6) SLR 758.
7. In view of the above and the law laid down in the judgments referred
above, the instant petition is partly allowed and the petitioners are entitled for
grant of pay scale of the post of Driver on which they are performing their duties
as discernible from the written statement and affidavit filed by the respondents
and respondents shall consider their case for promotion to the post of Driver on
their turn as per relevant Rules as admitted during the course of hearing.
8. The respondents are directed to grant the pay scale of the post of
Driver to the petitioners w.e.f the date they are performing their duties as detailed
in Annexure P-1. They shall also be entitled for arrears for 38 months prior to
date of filing of the present petition in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059305
2024:PHHC:059305
CM-7184-CWP-2024 in/and -5-
CWP-22248-2019
judgment passed in State of Madhya Pradesh and others Versus Yogendra
Shrivastava 2010(1)SCT 434. The necessary exercise shall be carried out within
a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
30.04.2024 (NAMIT KUMAR)
renubala JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
