SO CWP Noe8924of2010etce 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION 31 0502011 1eCWP Noe8924of2010 Jaswant Singhand others eeePetitioners m ir VERSUS 0 State ofPunjaband others C e e C5 2eCWP N0012244of2010 Roshan LaI Jain and others eeePetitioners 4 Z VERSUS 5 e State ofPunjaband others Q e e 3eCWP Noe2910of2010 1 JaspalSinghand others eeePetitioners Z ClO VERSUS State of Punjaband others Imv Z t1 CORAM HONBLE MReJUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT MrHarinder Shanna Advocate for thepetitioners emVV MrBS Chahal DAG Punjab Permod KohIi Je Involving common questions of law and facts thesepetitions are beingdisposedofbythis common order Gupta Suruchi 2014.05.28 10: 23 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 51 1 CWP Noe8924of2010etce 2 1v The petitioners in thesepetitions were working as LecturerslMasters ln vanous schools in the StateofPunjabA numberofpostsof Principalin the GovernmentSr Schools were lyingvacant The petitioners were gramed the powersof DrawingandDisbursing ofthe Posts of Principalalongwiththeir own duties with her stipulation that the offlcials will not claim any remunerationor allowance on account of his 1 performing the duties on the higherpost One of such order whereby 1 petitionernoeJaswant Singhin CWP No8924 of 2010 was grantedthe 0 0 powersofDrawingand Disbursing Officer is here underl Of8ce ofDisict Education Ofcer SE9Muktsar C5 OrderNoEeell3IOlIDDPowers11750e54 Z Dated Faridkot 24122001 In pursuantto the powers conferred vide order N0318 1 92S49 dated 1961992 issued by the Director Public C Instruction 0S Punjab upon havingthe Z post of Principalat Government Senior C School Chak SherewalaDistrict Muktsar havingfallen SmAo vacant Shri Jaswant Singhthe senior most Lecturer in Z Ll this school is herebygiventhe powers of Drawingand Disbursingof the Post of Principalalongwith his OWn dutiestill 8lrtherorders These powers are beinggivenwith the condition that he 6n shall not claim any remuneration or allowance on accountofhis performing the dutieson thehigherpost sdlDistt Education Officer 1 Muktsaf On the basis of similar orders all thepetitioners were granted Powers 1 Gupta Suruchi 2014.05.28 10: 23 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 52 V CWP Noe8924of2010 etce 3 V of Drawingand Disbursing Officers in their respective schools It is stated that the petitioners on beingconferred with powers of Drawingand Disbursing Officer took over the chargeof Principalsin their respective schools The have also mentioned the periodfor which each one of them held the chargeof PrincipalSome of them while holdingthe ofPrincipalwere promoted on basis as Principals 1 whereas some ofthem retiredwhile holdingthechargeofPrincipalwhereas r some others had to their chargeof Principal on 0 0 of regularincents as the Plincipalin those schoolsFrom Annexure Pl enclosedwith each writ petitionit appears 5 thattheofficiatingchargeofPrincipalremainedwith some ofthe petitioners Z for the periodsrangingbetween two years to more than 10 years The accordingly for grantof pay scale of the postof r for the periodthey held theofficiatingchargeof the postsThe 0 petitlOners are claiming the benefit of the higherpay scale for 2 the duties of higher by referring to PunjabCivil Services tXO RulesVoll Part4 Reference is madeto Rule 4Ac 413 416 and 422 2 in their replyhas disputed the claim of the petitioners Z onthe that the petitioners have only offlciatedagainstthe postsof Q while workingas Lecturersin SchoolCadre in GroupB postsIt 1S statedthat it was purelya temporary theywere never or promoted as Principalsby the competentauthoritybut only 6ee the duties of Drawingand Disbursing Officer in addition to their OWI1 dutiesas Lecturers It is also mentionedthat the petitioners were their salaryagainstthe post of Lecturers and were also geuing 1 incrementsattachedto thepostofLecturerslMasters have also Gupta Suruchi 2014.05.28 10: 23 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 53 CWP NoS924 of2010etce 4 V referredto the conditions imposedat the time of granting them offlciating chargewhere under the petitioners were not entitled to claim promotionor salaryfor the higherposts I haveheardlearned counselfor theparties While considering a similar question lll the case of Balbir Singh Dalal and others VS State of Harvanaand others 2002 31 RSJ 530 a Division Bench ofthis Court held as underl m C 8The essentialsfor raisingsuch a claim are satisfied in the 0 0 facts and circumstancesof the presentcase The petitioners were provided in accordancewith rules and were 5 required to discharge 8lnctions and duties of the postswhich admittedlycarried higher They were not Z holdinga duel chargeAgainstthe posts to which theywere L appointed on current duty chargesthe services of the petitionerswere regularizedThus we see no reason C Z whatsoeverto rejectthe requestof the petitioners for grantof CO appropriatepay scales payable to the postof Sub Divisional v Offlcer for the limitedperiodaforenoticed Z In regardto the argumenton behalf of the Statethat the anangement V was simplystopgap and temporary and hence petitioners are not entitled to the pay scale of the higherposts Learned counsel has particularly referredto the condition in the order grantinghigher that the me0 incumbent will not claim any remunerationor allowance on account of performing his dutyon thehigherpost It is arguedthat the petitioners now cannot claim higherpay scale particularly whentheywere never promoted OO thehigherpostin accordancewith rules 1 Gupta Suruchi 2014.05.28 10: 23 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 54 lp CWP Noe8924of2010etCe 5 V From the details fumished bythe petitioners it 1S found that most of the petitioners were allowed to function as Principalfor number of years Some of them even retired while the higher whereas some of them were regularlypromoted on the same post of PrincipalIt was only a few of them who had to relinquishthe of the Principalwhen a regularperson was posted as PrincipalThe periodfor which the petitioners had performedthe higher mm L cannot be said to be only a stop gap or temporary 0 The condition lIl the order prohibitingthe 40 petitioners from claimingthesalaryofthe higherpostsor C5 came up for scrutinybefore Honble SupremeCourt in the case of Engineer ChandigarhVSe Hari Om Sharma Z 5 199831SCT 900On consideration it hasbeenheld as under 8 Learned counsel for the appellant to contend that when the was promoted ln stopp C3 Z arrangement as Junior EngineerI he had given an CO to the appellantthat on the basis of stopegap C amo he would not claim promotionas of rightnor Z would he claim any benefit pertaining to that post The Il argumentto say the least is preposterousApartfrom the fact that the Governmentin its capacity as a model employer cannot be permitted to ralse such an argumentthe 4ee which is said to constitute an between the parties cannot be enforced at law The beingan employee of the appellanthad to break his period of althoughaswe havefound earlier he was the onlyperson Gupta Suruchi 2014.05.28 10: 23 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Il CWP Noe8924of2010etce 6 V amongstthe holders available for promotionto the post of Junior and was thereforelikely to be considered for promotion in his own rightAn agreement that if a person 1S promoted to the higherpost or put to offlciate on that post Or as in instant case a stopegap arrangement is madeto placehim on thehigherpost he would not claim highersalaryor other attendantbenefits would be t contraryto law and also againstpublicpolicy it would 0 therefore be unenforceable in view of Section 23 of the 0 Contract Act a9 I have also perusedthe statutoryrules referred to hereabove Theserules also providefor paymentfor higher Z In view of the above mentioned the petitioners are e 0 entitledto higherpay scale for the periodtheyperformed the dutiesof the PrincipalLet the claims ofthe petitioners be determinedand paidwithin a periodof four months from the date of receiptof certifled copy of this Z order C 4 Copyofthis order be placed on record ofeach concemed flle Z tl 4 PERMOD KOHLII JUDGE Pronounced onl 31 5e2011 MFK C Cct ecc s rhnM I1 04041 r c 1 214 1 Io 11 01 lr Gupta Suruchi 2014.05.28 10: 23 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document