CWP No.15971 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.15971 of 2009 Date of Decision: 19.04.2010 **** L.D. Saini and another . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab and another . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. O.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Addl. AG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioners seek a mandamus to direct the respondents to promote them as Principals on regular basis from the date when they have been given Current Duty Charge (CDC) and also to pay them arrears of pay till their retirements. (2). Their precise grievance is that though as per their seniority in the cadre of Lecturers and in terms of eligibility, they became entitled to promotion to the post of Principals, however, instead of granting the same on regular basis, the respondents, vide order dated 24.12.1997 CWP No.15971 of 2009.doc - 2 – (Annexure P2), gave them Current Duty Charge to officiate as Principals. The petitioners continued to perform their duties as such till they retired on attaining the age of superannuation. (3). The petitioners allege that had they been promoted on regular basis, they would have drawn higher emoluments as well as higher post- retiral benefits including pension etc. (4). The relief claimed by the petitioners indeed stands answered in affirmative by this Court vide decision dated May 5, 2008 rendered CWP No.1345 of 2001 titled as Niranjan Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, para 13 and 14 whereof, reads as follows:- “13. The question as to whether or not an employee can be denied emoluments of the higher post held by him on the ground that he is holding the same on ‘Current Duty Charge’ basis, is no longer res integra. In the case of Secretary cum Chief Engineer, Chandigarh v. Hari Om Sharma & Ors. JT 1998(3) SC 654, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that notwithstanding the fact that promotions were granted on ad hoc basis keeping in view the apparent conflict of inter se seniority amongst the employees of different feeder cadres, adhoc promotees were entitled to get the benefit of pay of promotional posts. In Chhavinder Kohli v. State of Punjab, 2001(1) RSJ 391 a Division Bench of this Court held that when an employee has been asked to perform his duties on a higher post he is entitled to be paid the salary of the said post even CWP No.15971 of 2009.doc - 3 – if he was allowed to hold the post of ‘Current Duty Charge’ basis. 14. The petitioners’ case appears to be on a higher pedestal. They were entitled to be promoted but could not be considered due to ban imposed by the State Government. They performed the duties on the promotional posts as per the method evolved by the State Government. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be denied the emoluments for the higher post to which they keep on working.” (5). For the reasons assigned in Niranjan Singh’s case (supra), the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the emoluments and salary admissible on the post of Principal to the petitioners for the period they discharged their duties as Principals on CDC basis and grant them all the other consequential benefits like revised pension etc. (6). The needful shall be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order failing which the petitioners shall be entitled to interest @ 7 per cent per annum. (7). Ordered accordingly. (8). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 19.04.2010 vishal shonkar