Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam And ... vs Dharampal And Another on 5 September, 2024
Author: Deepak Sibal
Bench: Deepak Sibal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116098-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
( Sr. No. 111 ) LPA No.2144 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 05.09.2024
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and another
..... Appellants
Versus
Dharampal and another
..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA
Present : Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate for the appellants.
***
DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)
(1) The present intra court appeal is directed against judgment dated
14.03.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the writ
petition filed by respondent No.1 through which he had sought to be paid
emoluments applicable to the higher post on which he was made to discharge
duties by the appellants.
(2) A few basic facts may be noticed.
(3) While the respondent served the appellant - Dakshin Haryana Bijli
Vitran Nigam (for short - Nigam) on the substantive post of Junior Engineer
(for short - J.E.), through order dated 17.02.2015, he was given current duty
charge to discharge duties on the promotional post of Sub Divisional Officer
(for short - S.D.O.). In pursuance to this order, the respondent served the
Nigam on the post of S.D.O. from 17.02.2015 till the date of his regular
promotion as S.D.O. on 26.10.2018. After his promotion, he made a
representation to the Nigam seeking therein the emoluments payable to a
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116098-DB
S.D.O. for the period that he had served on such post on current duty charge
basis, of course, after deducting the emoluments paid to him as a J.E. The
Nigam rejected his claim occasioning the filing of the aforesaid petition by
respondent No.1 before this Court. The learned Single Judge has allowed
respondent No.1's prayer through the judgment impugned before us.
(4) Learned counsel for the appellants has been heard.
(5) It is conceded before us that from 17.02.2015 till 26.10.2018
respondent No.1, who held the substantive rank of J.E., was made to work by
the Nigam on the next promotional post of S.D.O. and that he actually served
the Nigam as a S.D.O. for the aforesaid period on current duty charge basis. It
is further not disputed that during the time respondent No.1 served the Nigam,
on current duty charge basis, as a S.D.O., his work and conduct was
satisfactory.
(6) In the light of the afore undisputed facts, the impugned judgment,
through which respondent No.1 has been held entitled to be paid the difference
of salary between the posts of S.D.O. and J.E. from 17.02.2015 till 26.10.2018,
warrants no interference.
(7) Dismissed.
(8) All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of.
(DEEPAK SIBAL)
JUDGE
05.09.2024 ( DEEPAK MANCHANDA)
sunil yadav JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
2 of 2
