Sukhpreet Singh & Others vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 1594 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sukhpreet Singh & Others vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited ... on 24 January, 2024

                                                     Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009924




                                                      2024:PHHC:009924

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH

209
                                          CWP-11323-2016
                                          Date of Decision : 24.01.2024

Sukhpreet Singh and others                                   .....Petitioners

                                 Versus

Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd. and others                    .....Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR

Present :    Ms. Garima Pandey, Advocate for
             Mr. Anil Mehta, Advocate for the petitioners.

             Mr. Rajiv Dhawan, Advocate
             for respondent No.2.

             None for respondents No.1, 3 to 5.

                                 ****

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari

for quashing the condition contained in transfer/posting orders dated

26.09.2013, 04.10.2013, 09.12.2013 and 12.12.2013 (Annexure P-1)

(Colly) to the extent that despite working on the promotional post of

Accounts Officer, they shall not claim pay attached to the said post and

will be posted only in their own pay scale. Further a writ in the nature of

mandamus has been sought for directing the respondents to grant the

pay scale of the post on which the petitioners are performing their

duties.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition as

have been pleaded in the writ petition are that the petitioners are

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009924

2024:PHHC:009924

employees of the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Punjab

State Transmission Corporation Limited. They were working as

Assistant Accounts Officers and after completion of more than five

years of service as Assistant Accounts Officers, they were ordered to be

posted as Accounts Officers with the condition that they shall be placed

in their own pay scale of Assistant Accounts Officer without any

financial benefit. They were constrained to accept the posting orders as

Accounts Officer. The service particulars of the petitioners and their

date of assuming the charge of the post of Accounts Officer are as

under:-

Name of Date of Assuming Period of Service as Date of Employee/Emp. Code charges as AAO (Approx) Assuming with Father's name AAO/SAS Charges as AO Sukhpreet Singh 08.02.2002 5 Years 8 Months 07.10.2013 Paramjeet Kaur 08.02.2008 5 Years 7 Months 30.09.2013 Kuldeep Singh Raina 12.03.2008 6 Years 10.02.2014 Bhupinder Singh 08.02.2008 6 Years 1 Months 12.03.2014 Vinod Kumar 07.02.2008 6 Years 08.02.2014 Ranjit Singh 11.03.2008 5 Years 6 Months 26.09.2013 Kuldeep Singh 08.02.2008 5 Years 7 Months 27.09.2013 Manpreet Walia 07.02.2008 5 Years 10 Months 13.12.2013 Manisha Singla 07.02.2008 5 Years 10 Months 17.12.2013 Dapinder Kaur 08.02.2008 5 Years 10 Months 09.12.2013 Mohinderpal Singh 07.02.2008 5 Years 10 Months 13.12.2013

3. It has further been averred that the petitioners made

representation dated 14.01.2016 (Annexure P-3), however, they have

not been granted the pay scale of the post of Accounts Officer and

therefore, left with no alternative, the instant writ petition has been

preferred by them.

2 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009924

2024:PHHC:009924

4. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein

it has been stated that the petitioners were posted on the posts of

Accounts Officers in their own pay scale without any financial benefits

and once having accepted the said condition and joined on the posts of

Accounts Officers, they cannot claim the pay scale of the said post and

further their posting is only due to Administrative exigencies and as a

stop-gap arrangement. The relevant paras of the written statement read

as under :-

"2. The claim of the petitioners for higher pay scales for performing duties of higher post does not lie in view of the fact that the petitioners were posted against the vacant posts of Accounts Officers falling to the share of direct quota and reserve quota only in their own pay scale and as such they cannot claim any benefit for performing the duties of Accounts officers from the date when they joined in their own scale, further their posting is only due to administrative exigencies and as a stop gap arrangement due to vacant posts of reserve quota and direct quota same functions as were being performed by them earlier. In view of the abovesaid facts, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed on this ground only.

4. It has further been stated that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the respondent Corporation will consider the case of the petitioners for regular promotion as Accounts Officer as per their eligibility and seniority in the cadre of Assistant Accounts Officers and as such the petitioners cannot claim the pay scale associated to the post of Accounts Officer till the time they were granted regular promotion by the respondent Corporation."

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009924

2024:PHHC:009924

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

condition laid down in the posting orders (Annexure P-1) (Colly) of the

petitioners that they shall be placed in their own pay scales without any

financial benefits is totally arbitrary and is against the law laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and another Vs.

Dharam Pal : 2017(4) S.C.T. 460; Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer,

Chandigarh Vs. Hari Om Sharma : 1998(3) S.C.T. 90; Selva Raj Vs.

Lt. Governor of Island, Port Blair : 1999 (2) S.C.T. 286; Smt. P.

Grover Vs. State of Haryana : 1983(4) SCC 291 and law laid down by

this Court in Pritam Singh Dhaliwal Vs. State of Punjab and another :

2004(4) S.C.T. 403; Balbir Singh Dalal and others Vs. State of

Haryana and another : 2002(4) S.C.T. 422 and Gurmej Singh Vs.

State of Punjab : 1995(3) S.C.T. 279. Therefore, the petitioners are

entitled for pay scale of the post of Accounts Officer.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that

since the petitioners have already accepted the said condition and

thereafter, joined on the posts of Accounts Officers, therefore, they are

not entitled for the pay scales of the said post.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

relevant documents.

8. The petitioners, who were working as Assistant Accounts

Officers, have been posted against the posts of Accounts Officers after

they had rendered service of more than 05 years as Assistant Accounts

Officers. Once the petitioners have performed the duties of the posts of

Accounts Officers, they cannot be denied the pay scale of the said post.

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009924

2024:PHHC:009924

The condition that the petitioners shall be placed in their own pay scale

of Assistant Accounts Officer without any financial benefit is totally

arbitrary and not sustainable.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment passed in Smt.

P. Grover's case (supra) 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 :-

"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

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009924

2024:PHHC:009924

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."

10. To the same effect is the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Vs. Hari Om

Sharma : 1998 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.

11. 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.

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009924

2024:PHHC:009924

12. In view of the above factual position and the law laid down

in the abovesaid judgments, the present petition is allowed and the

respondents are directed to release the pay and allowances of the post of

Accounts Officers w.e.f. the date the petitioners have assumed the

charge of Accounts Officers, with all consequential benefits within a

period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this

order.

                                                      (NAMIT KUMAR)
24.01.2024                                                JUDGE
Kothiyal

             Whether Speaking/reasoned                Yes/No
             Whether Reportable                       Yes/No




                                                     Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009924

                                 7 of 7