^«»i S3 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR Singje Sench: Hon'bie Shrs Satish K. Agnihotri, J. W.P.No. 2027 of 2005 Petitioner Respondents Versus 1. 2. 3. Smt. Sunita Choubey, D/o Shri P.J. Malagar. R/o D-101, Shailendra Nagar, Distt: Ralpur (C.G.), Ret. As Incharge Education Officer Munidpai Corporation, Raipur. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary (Nagariy Prashasan Avam Vikas Vibhag, (Town Planning and Deveiopment Department), D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur. The Mayor, Municipal Corporation of Raipur, Maiviya Road, Raspur. Tho Commissioner, MunicipaJ Corporatjon, Malviya Road, Raipur. Shri N. K. Vyas. AcSvocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dvwedi, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri H. B. Agarwal. Senior Advocate with 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 jmpugns the vaSjcSity of the order dated 6.7.2004 (Annexure P/1) vvhereby ad-hoc promotion of the petitioner on the post of Principaj, vide order dated 29.4.1999, v/as cancelied. The petitioner further prays for payment of the saSary for the post of Principai, Vifhere she had worked on promotjon from 28.4.1999 to 31 .1.2005. 2. The fects in nutshell, necessar/ for disposal of this case are that the petitioner was worksng as Lecturer. On 29.4.1999 (Annexure P/4) the petitsoner was promoted to the post of Prsndpaj. temporarily for a period of six months in anticjpation of approvai from the State Government. Pursuant to the order dated 29.4.1999 the petitioner started working as Principal and continued to work tiil the order dated 6.7.2004 was passed, canceiing the promotion of the petjtioner to the post of PrincspaS. Thus, this petitjon. 3. Shri N. K. Vyas, Searned counssi appearing for the petitioner submits that the petjtjoner does not want to press the reSief ciause (i) i.e. quashing of the impugnsd order ciated 6.7.2004 (Annsxure P/1). With regard to the second prayer s.e. grant of pay scate of Principal as weli as payment of difference of amount of saSar/, Shri Vyas submits that since the petitioner has worked on the post of Principai. she is entitied to the benefit of salary of the post of PrincipaS. Shri Vyas further relies on the circular No. G-29/1/85/C/Sy. dated 26.8.1995. issued by the Finance Department, which js stjil in sxistence, whereby an employee v^ho has been promoted to the higher post, temporarily or otherv»'jse, is entitled to the benefits of F.R. 22-D. 4. Shri H. B. Aganva!, learneci senior counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3 submits that it was an additionai assignment of the petitioner, therefore. the petjtjoner was entitied to the specjat allowance onSy for the additional assignment. He aSso submits that pursuant to the promotion order. Rs. 3000/- was aSready paid to the petitioner. 5. ! have heard leamed counss! appearing for the parties. perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. On perusal of the promotion order dated 28.4.1999 and the impugned order dated S.7.2004 it is evident that the contention of Shri AgarwaS is contrary to the facts, as the order ciearly Indicates that the petitioner was not given an additional assignment but she was promoted to the post of Principal. Shri Agarwal does not offer any submission with regard to the grant of benefit of F.R. 22-D, which is available to the petjtloner on account of promotion to the post of Principal. 6. Learned counseS appearing for the petitioner cited a decisjon of Hon'bfe the Supreme Court in Badri Prasad and others Vs. Union of India and others (AIR 2005 S.C. 2531), wherein conssdering the fact that the v/ork 3 ">^'SE"^ |N»» was taken from the employees in group 'D' post on a higher Group 'C' post for a iong period, it was heSd that the pay !ast drawn by them in Group 'C' shall be protected. 7. Having regard to the facts and clrcumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petltioner is entstled to the benefit of fixation of her pay under F.R. 22-D, pursuantto the promotion order dated 29.4.1999 (Annexure P/4) and consequently, the petitioner is entstled to the arrears of saSar/ and acSmissible atlowances for performSng the duties on the promotional post of Principal till the said order was canceiled vsde impugned order dated 6.7.2004. 8. In view of the foregoing, this petitjon js partSy aSSov/ed to the extent that the petitioner is entitled to the salary and admissible alSowances pursuant to the promotion order dated 29.4.1899 for the period the petitioner performed her duties on the post of PrincipaS. The amount of arrears sha!I carry sjmple snterest at the normai rate. The amount, if any, already paid to the petitioner shali be adjustsd with the arrears of salary. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur