^l^ 69 HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Stngle Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satssh K. Agnshotri, J. W.P.NO. 2026of200S Petitjoner Respondents Versus 1. 2. 3. Smt Ramkali Verma, aged about 52 years, W/o Late Shri Bhagwati Prasad Verma, R/o Gayatri Nagar, Dagansya. Raipur (C.G.). Stete ofChhattisgarh, Through Secretary (Nagariy Prashasan Avam Vikas Vibhag, (Town Ptanning and Development Department), D.K.S. Bhayan, Raipur. Ths Mayor, Munidpal Corporation of Raspur, Malviya Road, Ralpur. The Commissioner. Municipal Corporation. YaJviya Road, Raipur. Shri N. K. Vyas. Advocate for the petitsoner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri H. B. Agarwal, Senior Advocate wlth Shri J. K. Gupta, Advocate for the respondents No. 2 and 3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 8th day of Aprii, 2008) 1. The petitioner impugns the validity of ttie order dated 6.7.2004 (Annexure P/1) v/hereby ad-hoc promotion of the petitioner. vide order dated 28.4.19^, was cancelled. The petitioner further prays for payment of the salar/ for ths post of Lecturer. where she had worked on promotion from 28.4.1999to31.1.2005. 2. The facte in nutshelS, necessary for disposal of this case are that the petitloner was working as Heaci master. On 28.4.1999 (Annexure P/4) the petitioner was promoted to the post of Lecturer, on probation of two years. Pursuant to the order ctated 28.4.1898 the petitioner started working as Lecturer ancS contjnued to v/ork tiSI the order dated 6.7.2004 was passed, canceling promotion of the petitioner to the post of Lecturer. Thus, this petition. _____-—— ^ 3. Shri N. K. Vyas, Searned counset appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not want to press the reiief dause (i) s.e. quashing of the impugned order dated 6.7.2004 (Annexure P/1). With regard to the second prayer i.e. grant of pay scaie of Lecturer as well as payment of difference of amount of saiary, Shri Vyas submits that since the petitloner has worked on the post of Lecturer, she js entitled to the benefst of salary of the post of Lecturer. Shri Vyas further reiies on the circular No. G-29/1/95/C/IV, dated 26.8.1995, issued by the Fjnance Department, v/hich is still sn existence, v/herebyan employee who has been promoted to the hjgher post, temporarily or othervflse, is entjtled to the benefits of F.R.22-D. 4. Shri H. B. Agarwal, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3 submits that it was an adcSitional assignment of the petitioner, therefore, the petjtioner was entitled to the special alSowance only for the addJtionai assignment. 5. ! have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pteadings and cSocuments appended thereto. On perusal of the promotion order cSated 28.4.1999 anci the impusned order dated 6.7.2004 it is evident that the contention of Shri Agarwal is contrary to the facts, as the order clearly indicates that the petitioner was not given an additional assignment but she was promoted to the post of Lecturer. Shri Agarwal does not offer any submission wth regard to the grant of benefrt of F.R. 22-D, which is availabie to the petitioner on account of promotion to the post of Lecturer. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petltjoner cited a ciecjsion of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Badri Prasad and others Vs. Union of India and others (AJR 2005 S.C. 2531), wherein considerjng the fact that the work was taken from the smpioyees in group 'D' post on a higher Group 'C' post for a long period, it was held that the pay last drawn by them in Group 'C' shall be protected. IpNNlS^ 7. Having regard to the facte and circumstances, this Court js of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitSed to the benefit of fixation of her pay under F.R. 22-D pursuantto the promotion order dated 28.4.1998 (Annexure P/4) and consequentiy, the petitioner is entitled to the arrears of saSary and admjssible aliowances for performing the dutses on the promotlQnal post of Lecturer tsll the said order was cancelled vide jmpugned order dated 6.7.2004. 8. (n view of the foregoing, this petition is partly allowed to the extent that the petitioner is entitled to the salary and admissjble allowances pursuant to the promotion order dated 28.4.1999 for the period the petitioner performed her duties on the post of Lecturer. The amount of arrears shall carry simpte interest atthe normal rate. No order asto costs. Thakur Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge