Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pseb vs Ishar Singh on 30 April, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059418
2024:PHHC:059418
RSA-823-1998(O&M)
-1-
221
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-823-1998(O&M)
Date of order:-30.04.2024
Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and another
...Appellants
Versus
Ishar Singh Sidhu
...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present :- Mr.Alok Mittal, Advocate for
Mr.Ishwinderpal Singh, Advocate
for the appellants.
None for respondent.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL)
1. Defendants are before this Court by way of the instant
second appeal challenging the concurrent findings recorded by both the
Courts below.
2. Pleaded case of the plaintiff - respondent is that he was
working on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) and was posted as a
Junior Librarian at Guru Nanak Dev Thermal Plant, Bathinda when that
post fell vacant on 29.05.1985. Subsequently, he was reverted to the
post of LDC and was again promoted on 24.10.1987 and continued to
work on that post till the filing of the suit. During the pendency of the
suit, he was again reverted to the original post. He has filed a suit for
declaration that he is entitled to the benefit of salary of the post on
which he was discharging duties. Upon notice, suit was contested by the
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059418
2024:PHHC:059418
RSA-823-1998(O&M)
defendants by filing written statement wherein they have denied the
claim and took a stand that the plaintiff was discharging duties as a stop
gap arrangement. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed
and after they led evidence, Trial Court by judgment dated 18.10.1994
decreed the suit holding that plaintiff is entitled to arrears of salary for
three years prior to filing of the suit. First appeal preferred by the
defendants was rejected by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda
by judgment dated 06.01.1998, resulting in the institution of the present
appeal by them.
3. I have heard counsel for the appellants and considered his
submissions as well as examined the record with his able assistance.
4. Plaintiff has led evidence and established before the Trial
Court that he was asked to work on the higher post from October, 1987
and he discharged duties on the post till his retirement. Rule 3 (iv) of
Rule 14 (iv) of Punjab State Electricity Board, Main Services
Regulations 1972 provides that where the officiating promotion exceeds
three months, an employee is to be granted the pay of the higher post for
the excess period. Moreover, an employee is entitled to the salary of the
post on which he has discharged duties even if he has been asked to
work on officiating post or has been given a temporary charge. It has
been so held by the Supreme Court in Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer,
Chandigarh Versus Hari Om Sharma (1998) 5 S.C.C. 87. This Court
is, therefore, of the view that the reasoning given by the Courts below
does not call for any interference and the judgments and decrees of both
the Courts deserve to be upheld.
5. Finding no merit in the appeal, it is hereby dismissed with
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059418
2024:PHHC:059418
RSA-823-1998(O&M)
no order as to costs.
6. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
30.04.2024 JUDGE
Brij
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
