CWP No. 4552 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 4552 of 2003 Date of Decision: July 01 , 2010 Darshan Singh and another ...... Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Ranjeevan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kirart Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. The petitioners have filed the present petition with the prayer that since they were asked to perform the duties of Block Primary Education Officer, they should be deemed as having been promoted to the said post and releasee of the consequential benefits. The necessary order in this regard as applicable to the petitioner No.1 is Annexure P-3 and is reproduced herein below:- “Sh.Darshan Singh, Centre Head Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Brahman Majra, Block Ropar-2 is hereby granted the DDO powers to draw the salaries and other CWP No. 4552 of 2003 2 allowances to the staff under the office of Block Primary Education Officer, Majri. These powers are temporary and can be cancelled at any time without any prior notice. The employee will not get any additional allowance for this work.” It is not disputed that the petitioners functioned as such for a period of slightly over one year before having retired. Additionally it has also been averred that the case of the petitioners for regular promotion was also initiated but could not come through. In the written statement the plea taken is that by order Annexure R-1 a complete ban was imposed on recruitment of posts lying vacant at present and also likely to fall vacant due to retirement or any other reasons since all such posts would be deemed to have been abolished forthwith. It was further pleaded that in the order Annexure P-3 it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner was temporarily granted DDO power and it was further stipulated that he would not get any additional allowance for this work. Learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly argued that the ban on recruitment could be held to apply only to direct recruitment and could not be held applicable to promotion. In my opinion document Annexure R-1 admits of no such reading. In normal parlance the word 'recruitment' would include direct appointment and promotion. The fact that the letter Annexure R-1 applied to all posts lying vacant would also show that promotional posts have not been excluded therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon Selvaraj v. Lt. Governor of Island, Port Blair and others reported as 1998(4) RSJ 22 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “................Fact remains that the appellant has worked on the CWP No. 4552 of 2003 3 higher post though temporarily and in an officiating capacity pursuant to the aforesaid order and his salary was to be drawn during that time against the post of Secretary (Scouts). It is also not in dispute that the salary attached to the post of Secretary(Scouts) was in the pay scale of 1640-2900. Consequently, on the principle of quantum meruit the respondents authorities should have paid the appellant as per the emoluments available in the aforesaid higher pay scale during the time he actually worked on the said post of Secretary (Scouts) though in an officiating capacity and not as a regular promotee. This limited relief is required to be given to the appellant only on this ground.” Learned DAG has argued that even though he is not in a position to cite any judgment contrary to this, yet the distinguishing factors are that in the order relating to the petitioners it was specifically mentioned that they would not be entitled to any such pay while there was no such stipulation in the case of Selveraj(supra). In my opinion this would not be determinative. What the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided in the case of Selvaraj (supra) is the entitlement of an employee to get the emoluments of the post against which he actually worked. Consequently even while dismissing the petition as regards the claim that the petitioners should be deemed to have been regularly promoted, the petition is allowed to be limited extent that the petitioners would be entitled to the emoluments attached to the post of the Block Primary Education Officer for the period they actually worked against the CWP No. 4552 of 2003 4 said post. Let the amount now available to the petitioners under this order be paid to them within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Incase the amount is not so paid, the respondents shall be liable to pay interest thereon at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date/s when the amount/s fell due. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE July 01, 2010 sunita