Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harnam Singh And Ors vs Haryana Urban Developmenty Authority ... on 6 November, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144199
CWP-9966-1997 -1-
104
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-9966-1997
Date of decision: 06.11.2024
HARNAM SINGH AND OTHERS
...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present:- Mr. Ashish Bansal, Advocate as Legal Aid Counsel
for the petitioners.
Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate
for respondent No.1-HUDA.
Mr. Gaurav Jindal, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing respondent No.1-HUDA to provide the pay scale of the higher post of
Accounts Officer to the petitioners during the period they discharged their
duties on current duty charge basis and also for regularizing their promotion in
the light of amended regulations.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case where
the petitioners were earlier appointed as Accounts Assistants and they were
promoted to the post of Accountants in the year 1986. He further submitted that
thereafter, the petitioners were granted current duty charge for the post of
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144199
CWP-9966-1997 -2-
Accounts Officer, which is a higher post and they discharged their duties on the
higher post i.e. Accounts Officer from the year 1991 onwards till the year 1999
and thereafter, in the year 1999, they were regularly promoted to the post of
Accounts Officers except for one petitioner, who was promoted in the year 2000
and in this way they have discharged the duties on current duty charge basis on
a higher post of Accounts Officer and worked on that post till the time they
were actually promoted on regular basis. He further submitted that the
petitioners were entitled for grant of difference of salary and in this regard, the
present writ petition was filed in the year 1997 and at that point of time they
were still discharging their duties on a higher post of Accounts Officer on
current duty charge basis.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment passed
by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. P. Grover versus State of Haryana and
another, (1983) 4 SCC 291, a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Balbir
Singh Dalal versus State of Haryana, 2002 (4) SCT 422, judgments passed by
a Coordinate Bench of this Court in P. D. Kaushik versus State of Haryana
and others, CWP-16541-2015 and Nihal Singh versus State of Haryana and
others, CWP-7642-2018 and also another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh versus Hari Om Sharma and
others, (1998) 5 SCC 87. He further referred to a Full Bench judgment of this
Court in Subhash Chander versus State of Haryana and others, 2012 (1) SLR
207, wherein similar issue was considered and it was held that a person who is
given a current duty charge is entitled for the pay and salary for the time he had
discharged his duties on that post.
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144199
CWP-9966-1997 -3-
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that it is now a
settled law that any employee who works on a higher post on ad-hoc/current
duty charge basis, he is entitled for grant of salary for the post on which he has
worked and there is no justification for denial of the same in view of the settled
law.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1-HUDA
submitted that he has instructions to state that there is no dispute with regard to
the fact that the petitioners were granted current duty charge on the higher post
of Accounts Officer in the year 1991 and thereafter, they were regularly
promoted in the year 1999 except for one petitioner, who was promoted in the
year 2000. He has provided a chart of the dates in this regard and the same is
taken on record. The chart which has been prepared by the respondent No.1-
HUDA and supplied to this Court today is reproduced as under:-
Subject:- CWP No.9966 of 1997 titled as Harnam Singh and
others Vs HUDA (Now HSVP) and anr.
Petitioner's Date of CDC of Date of Regular Remarks
Accounts Officer Promotion of
Accounts Officer
Harnam Singh S/o 04.12.1991 22.10.1999 30.06.2003
Sh. Dayal Singh (Retd.)
Sham Sunder 04.12.1991 22.10.1999 Retired as Sr.
Khurana S/o Sh. Accounts Officer
Ram Lal Khurana on 30.04.2013
Raghubir Singh 04.12.1991 2000 Retired as Sr.
Kaushik S/o Sh. Accounts Officer
Saheb Ram Kaushik on 31.03.2010
Radhey Shyam 14.05.1991 18.11.1999 Retired as Chief
Goel S/o Accounts Officer
Sh. Kishori Lal on 30.06.2014
R. K. Verma S/o 04.12.1991 22.10.1999 Retired as
Sh. Ram Singh Accounts Officer
on 30.04.2010
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144199
CWP-9966-1997 -4-
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-HUDA also submitted that
even though the petitioners have worked on a higher post of Accounts Officer
and discharged their duties as such, they are not entitled for the grant of
difference of salary in view of the fact that as per Rule 76 of the Haryana Civil
Services (Pay) Rules, 2016, it has been so provided that no additional pay shall
be admissible for holding, independently or in addition to own duties, current
duty charge of another post(s) of the same or higher grade pay regardless of
the duration.
7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
8. It is not in dispute in the present case that the petitioners, who were
working as Accounts Officers were granted current duty charge to work on a
higher post i.e. Accounts Officer from the year 1991 onwards till the year 1999
except for one petitioner, namely, Raghubir Singh Kaushik, who worked till the
year 2000 as per the aforesaid chart supplied to this Court by the learned
counsel for respondent No.1-HUDA. The law in this regard is also not
res integra.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer,
Chandigarh versus Hari Om Sharma and others (supra) held as under:-
"7. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed
reliance on Shreedaran Chandra Ghosh v. State of Assam &
Ors. (1996) 10 SCC 567, as also on State of Haryana v. S.M.
Sharma & Ors., JT 1993 (3) SC 740, to contend that since
the respondent was promoted on the basis of stop-gap
arrangement, he could not claim promotion as a matter of
right nor could be claim salary for the post of Junior
Engineer-I as he was given only current duty charge of the
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144199
CWP-9966-1997 -5-
post. Both the contentions cannot be accepted. The Tribunal
has already held that the respondent having been promoted
as Junior Engineer I, though in stop-gap arrangement, was
continued on that post, and therefore, he has a right to be
considered for regular promotion. Having regard to the facts
of this case, there is no reason to differ with the Tribunal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant attempted to
contend that when the respondent was promoted in stop-gap
arrangement as Junior Engineer I, he had given an
undertaking to the appellant 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
argument, to say the least, is preposterous. Apart from the
fact that the Government in its capacity as a model employer
cannot be permitted to raise such an argument, the
undertaking which is said to constitute an agreement
between the parties cannot be enforced at law. The
respondent being an employee of the appellant had to break
his period of stagnation although, as we have found earlier,
he was the only person amongst the non-diploma holders
available for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer I and
was, therefore, likely to be considered for promotion in his
own right. An agreement that if a person is promoted to the
higher post or put to officiate on that post or, as in the
instant case, a stop-gap arrangement is made to place him
on the higher post, he would not claim higher salary or
other attendant benefits would be contrary to law and also
against public policy. It would, therefore, be unenforceable
in view of Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872."
10. The only plea taken by the learned counsel for respondent No.1-
HUDA is that in view of Rule 76 of the Haryana Civil Services (Pay) Rules,
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144199
CWP-9966-1997 -6-
2016, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of any additional pay. However,
the aforesaid Rule 76 has been incorporated and has come into force in the year
2016, which cannot apply retrospectively. The subject matter of the present case
pertains to the year from 1991 to 1999 and therefore, by no stretch of
imagination the aforesaid Rule 76 can be made applicable to the present case.
On the other hand, the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the
aforesaid judgments as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the settled law.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ
petition is allowed. The respondent No.1-HUDA is directed to calculate the
arrears of difference of salary/pay of the petitioners for the time period when
they started discharging the duties of Accounts Officer till the time they were
regularly promoted to the post of Accounts Officer (as per the chart reproduced
above) and pay the same to them, within a period of four months from today,
along with interest @ 6% per annum (simple). In case the aforesaid amount is
not paid to the petitioners within a period of aforesaid four months, then the
petitioners shall be entitled for future rate of interest @ 9% per annum (simple).
12. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
06.11.2024 JUDGE
Chetan Thakur
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
