53 r CWP No8924 of2010etce 1 V 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGAR DATE OF DECISION 3152011 1eCWP Noe8924of2010 Jaswant Singhand others eeePetitioners VERSUS 0 State ofPunjaband others 0 e e I 2eCWP No12244 of2010 C5 Z Roshan Lal Jain and others ePetitioners Z VERSUS 2 State ofPunjaband others e e I 3eCWP Noe2910of2010 JaspalSinghand others eeePetitioners Z 00 VERSUS State of Punjaband others 7 Z ee tl CORAM HONBLE MReJUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT Mrarinder Sharma Advocate for thepetitioners 4Lmod MrBS Chahal DAG Punjab Permod KohliJe Involving common questions of law and facts thesepetitions are beingdisposed ofbythis common order Gupta Suruchi 2014.05.14 15: 50 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 54 r7 CWP No8924 of2010etc 2 The petitioners in thesepetitions were working as LecturerVlasters 111variousgovernmentschools in the StateofPunjabA numberofpostsof Princlpalin the Govemment Sr Schools were lyingvacant The petitioners were granted the powersof Drawing and ofthe Posts of Principalalongwiththeir own dutieswith further stipulation that the offIcials will not claim any remunerationor allowance on account of his the duties on the higherpost One of such order hereby petitioner nolaswant Singhin CWP No924 of 2010 was grantedthe 0 0 powersofDrawingand OfOcer is here under Ofce ofDisuict Educa8on Ocer E9Musar C5 Order Powers1I750e54 Z Dated Faridkot 24122001 2 In pursuantto the powers conferred vide order N03I8 r 92S1049 dated 196 1992issued by the Director Public I Instruction 6S9Punjab upon havingthe postof Principalat Government Senior 4 0 School Chak SherewalaDistrict Muktsar havingfallen P 1 vacant Shri Jaswant Singhthe senior most Lecturer in this school is herebygiventhe powers of Drawingand Disbursingof the Post of Principalalongwith his own dutiestill ther orders These powers are beinggivenwith the condition that he shall not claim any remuneration or allowance on account ofhis performing the duties on thehigherpost sdlDistt Education OHicer S9 Muktsar On the basisof similar orders all thepetitioners were granted Powers Gupta Suruchi 2014.05.14 15: 50 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 55 r7 CWP Noe8924of2010etc 2 The petitioners in thesepetitions were workingas LecturerVlasters in various schools in the StateofPunjabA numberofpostsof Principalin the GovernmentSr Schoolswere IyingvacantThe petitioners were granted the powers of Drawingand ofthe Posts of Principal their own duties with further stipulation that the officials will not claim any remunerationor allowance on account of his i the duties on the higherpost One of such order whereby petitioner nolTaswant Singhin CWP No8924 of 2010 was granted the 0 0 powersofDrawingand Of6cer is here underl I Office ofDistrict Education Officer 6SE9Muktsar C5 I Order No11365YOlIDDPowers11750e54 Z Dated Faridkot 24122001 ln pursuantto the powers conferredvide order N0318 92Sel 49dated 1961992 issued bythe Director Public I lO lnstruction 6S9Punjab upon havingthe Z postof Principalat Government Senior OO School Chak SherewalaDistrict Muktsar havingfallen 7 vacant Shri Jaswant Singhthe senior most Lecturer in Z Om this school is herebygiventhe powers of Drawingand Disbursingof the Post of Principalalongwithhis own dutiestill 6irtherorders These powers are beinggivenwith the condition that he e0 shall not claim any remuneration or allowance on account ofhis performing the dutieson thehigherpost sdlDistt Education Of6cer 6S9 Muktsar On the basisof similar orders all thepetitioners were granted Powers Gupta Suruchi 2014.05.14 15: 50 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 56 A CWP NoS924of2010etc 3 of Drawing and Disbursing Officers in theirrespective schools It is stated that the on beingconferredwith powers of Drawingand Disbursing Officer took over thechargeof Principals in their schools The petitioners have also mentioned the periodfor which each one of them held the chargeof PrincipalSome of them while holdingthe charge ofPrincipal were promoted on basis as Principals whereassome ofthem retired while holding the chargeofPrincipalwhereas tr some others had to relinquishtheir chargeof Principal on 0 43 of regularincumbents as the Principalin those I schools From Annexure P l enclosed with each writ petitionit appears 45 thatthe offlciatingchargeofPrincipalremainedwith some ofthe Z for the periodsrangingbetween two years to more than 10 years The accordingly for grant of pay scale of the post of 0 Principal for the periodtheyheld the ofciatingchargeof the postsThe I petitioners are claiming the benefitof the higherpayscale for Z 141 the duties of higher by to PunjabCivil Services OO Rules Voll Part4 Referenceis madeto Rule 4A6c 43 416 and 422 a in their replyhas the claim of the petitioners Z 1 on thegroundthat the petitioners have only offlciated againstthe postsof Principalwhile workingas Lecturersin School Cadre in GroupB posts It 1S statedthat it was purelya temporaryarrangementtheywere never or promoted as Principalsbythe competentauthoritybut only 4ewe assigned the duties of Drawingand Disbursing Officer in addition to their own duties as Lecturers It is also mentioned that the petitioners were drawingtheir salaryagainstthe post of Lecturers and were also getting incrementsattachedto the postofLecturerslMasters havealso Gupta Suruchi 2014.05.14 15: 50 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 57 6 1 CWP Noe8924of2010etce 4 referredto theconditions at the time of granting them of6ciating chargewhere under the petitioners were not entitled to claim promotion or salaryforthe higherposts I haveheardleamedcounsel for theparties While a similar questionin the case of Balbir Singh Dalal and others vs State of Haryanaand others 2002 31 RSJ 530 a DivisionBench ofthis Court held as under1 m 1 8The essentialsfor raisingsuch a claim are satisfied in the 0 facts and circumstancesof the presentcase The petitioners 0 I wereprovided in accordancewith rules and were t5 I required to discharge fiinctions and duties of the postswhich carried higher They were not Z holding a duel chargeAgainstthe poststo which theywere m 0 appointedon current duty chargesthe services of the I petitioners were Thus we see no reason Z whatsoeverto rejectthe request of the for grantof m pay scales payable to the post of Sub Divisional 7 Officer for the limited periodafore1oticed2 Z In regardto the argumenton behalf of the Statethat the auangement 41 was simplystopgap and temporaryand hence petitioners are not entitled to the pay scale of the higherposts Leamed counsel has particularly referredto the condition in the order grantinghigher that the dee incumbent will not claim any remuneration or allowance on account of performing his dutyon the higherpost lt is arguedthat thepetitioners now cannot claim higherpay scale particularly whentheywere never promoted on thehigherpostin accordance with rules Gupta Suruchi 2014.05.14 15: 50 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 58 LJ VCWPNoS924 of2010etc 5 From the details fumishedbythe it is found that most of the petitioners were allowedto function as Principal for number of years Someof them even retiredwhile the higher whereassome of them were on the same post of PrincipalIt was only a few of them who had to the of the Principal when a regularperson was postedas PrincipalThe periodfor which the had the higher l cannot be said to be only a stop gap or temporary 0 The condition 111 the order prohibiting the CAO I from claimingthesalaryofthe higherpostsor 0 came up for scrutinybefore Honble SupremeCourt in the case of Z SecretarrcumChiefEngineer ChandigarhVSe Hari Om Sharma Z 199831 SCT 900On considerationit hasbeenheld as underl C 8 Learned counsel for the to contend I that when the was promotedlll stopgap r Z arrangement as Junior he had given an a0 to the that on the basis of stopgap 7 he would not claim promotionas of rightnor Z would he claim any benefit pertaining to that post The 11 to say the Ieast is preposterousApart om the fact thatthe Governmentin its capacity as a model employer cannot be permitted to raise such an argumentthe 1me which is said to constitute an agreementbetween the parties cannot be enforced at law The beingan employee of the appellanthad to break his period of althoughas we have found earlier he was the onlyperson Gupta Suruchi 2014.05.14 15: 50 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 59 J r CWP Noe8924of2010etc 5 From the detailsfiimishedbythepetitioners it is foundthat most of the were allowedto functionas Principal for numberof years Someof them even retired while the higher whereassome of them were promoted on the same post of PrincipalIt was only a few of them who had to relinquishthe of the Principal when a regularpersonwas postedas PrincipalThe periodfor which the petitioners had performed the higher m cannot be said to be only a stop gap or temporary 0 0 The condition lll the order the I petitioners from claiming the salary ofthe higherpostsor 0 I came up for scrutinybefore Honble SupremeCourt 111 the case of SecretarrcunChiefEngineer Chandigarh VSe Hari Om Sharma Z 199831SCT 900On considerationit hasbeenheld as under r 8 Leamed counsel for the to contend I that when the was promoted ltl stopgap Z arrangement as Junior Engineer4he had given an 10 to the appellantthat on the basis of stopegap 2 he would not claim promotionas of rightnor Z would he claim any benefit to that post The CL argumentto say the least is preposterousApartfrom the fact that the Govemmentin its capacity as a model employer cannot be permitted to raise such an argumentthe e which is said to constitute an agreementbetween the parties cannot be enforced at Iaw llhe being an employee of the appellanthad to break his period of stagnation althoughas we have found earlier he was the onlyperson Gupta Suruchi 2014.05.14 15: 50 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 60 0 1 CWP NoS924 of2010etc 6 amongst the nonliploma holders availabIefor to the post of Junior and was therefore likely to be considered for promotion in his own right An agreement that if a person 1S to the higherpost or put tOI ofliciate on that post or as In lnstant case a stopgap is madeto placehim on thehigherpost he would not claim highersalary or other attendant beneflts would be 1 r contraryto law and also againstpublicpolicy it would 0 therefore be unenforceable in view of Section 23 of the 0 Contract Act I C5 I have also perusedthe statutoryrules referred to here4nabove I These rules alsoprovidefor paymentfor higher Z In view of the above mentioned judgmentsthe petitioners are 2 r entitledto higherpay scale for the periodthey the dutiesof the I PrincipalLet the claims ofthe petitioners be determinedand paidwithin a periodof four monthsfrom the date of receiptof certifiedcopy of this Z order 01 Copyofthis order be placed on recordofeach concerned file 7 PERMOD KOHLII e1 JUDGE Pronounced on2 31 32011 MFK C 911 e 00l6 1 1 1 Gupta Suruchi 2014.05.14 15: 50 True Scanned Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document