IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 17466 of 2009 Date of Decision: 13.1.2011. Amar Singh --Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Pankaj Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, D.A.G., Punjab. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) This petition proceeds on admitted factual background. Petitioner was appointed as Dark Room Assistant (herein after referred to as D.R.A) on ad hoc basis in June, 1983. His services came to be regularized in the year 1985 as is evident from Annexure P-1, order dated 18.8.1986. It is admitted case of the parties that in June, 2003 petitioner was asked to work as a Radiographer, the post higher in status and pay scale. Petitioner claims to be working on the said post since then. He has also been transferred from one place to another place to discharge the duties of Radiographer. Various office orders transferring the petitioner from one place to another to undertake the emergency work of Radiographer have been placed on record as Annexure P-2 collectively. It is equally admitted position that the petitioner is not qualified to hold the post of Radiographer for which the qualification prescribed is 10+2 with Diploma in Radiographer, whereas the qualification for the post of D.R.A, the post substantively held by the petitioner is 10+2 with science. Despite the fact that petitioner was not qualified, he was asked to perform the duties of CWP. No. 17466 of 2009 -2- Radiographer and was imparted training to effectively discharge his duties as Radiographer. The petitioner even requested the respondents not to ask him to perform the duties of Radiographer as he is not qualified and has no experience but keeping in view the urgent need of Radiographer, he was imparted even training to discharge the duties as Radiographer. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction in the nature of Mandamus either to grant him the pay scale of Radiographer for the period he has been working as such or to regularly appoint him as Radiographer. Respondents in the reply while admitting that the petitioner has been discharging the duties of Radiographer have simply stated that he is not qualified to hold the post which is higher in status carrying higher pay scale. Admittedly, petitioner is not qualified to hold the post. However, at the same time petitioner has been discharging the duties of the higher post. Respondents cannot utilize the services of the petitioner as Radiographer for want of qualifications but at the same time the petitioner, who has effectively discharged the duties of a Radiographer for the last number of years, has to be compensated for discharging higher duties and responsibilities of higher post effectively. The respondents are satisfied with his functioning as a Radiographer, even though, he is not qualified to hold the post. Under the given circumstances, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:- 1. The petitioner shall be relieved from the post of Radiographer and be permitted to join his substantive post of D.R.A. CWP. No. 17466 of 2009 -3- 2. Respondents shall pay charge allowance to the petitioner for discharging the duties as a Radiographer, if, any prescribed under rules and if, no charge allowance is provided for discharging the higher responsibilities on a higher post, amount equivalent to 10% of the basic salary be allowed to the petitioner for the period he has discharged or continued to discharge the duties of Radiographer. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 13.1.2011. lucky