1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1542 of 2011

The State of Punjab        …Appellant(s)

Versus

B.K. Dhir    …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, CJI

 The respondent retired from government service from

the  post  of  Additional  Director,  Panchayats,  Punjab  on

31.10.1993. During the course of tenure of his service, he

had earned his  promotions and while  working as Deputy

Director  (Land Development),  he  was given the  officiating

charge  of  the  post  of  Joint  Director  (RD),  Punjab,

Chandigarh with  effect  from 01.05.1993 vide  letter  dated

30.04.1993.  He  was  conferred  with  the  powers  and

functions  of  the  Director,  Panchayats  under  the  Punjab

Gram Panchayat Act, 1952. Subsequently vide order dated

23.06.1993,  he  was  assigned  the  work  of  the  post  of

Additional  Director,  Panchayats.  He  assumed  the  said

2

charge on 01.07.1993. Vide notification dated 23.09.1993,

the powers of  the Director,  Panchayats were conferred on

him. At the time of attaining the age of superannuation, he

was  discharging  the  duties  of  the  post  of  Additional

Director.

2. The grievance of the respondent was that he was not

paid the salary while he was officiating in the higher post.

As  the  grievance  was  not  addressed,  he  approached  the

High Court in a Writ Petition which was dismissed by the

learned single Judge.  In intra-court appeal, that is, L.P.A.

No.  198 of  2003,  the  Division Bench placing  reliance  on

Pritam Singh Dhaliwal v. State of Punjab and another1

came to hold as follows:

“Having  thoughtfully  considered  the  rival contentions,  we  find  merit  in  the  prayer  of  the appellant  and  are  of  the  view  that  his  case  is squarely covered by the ratio of  the judgment in Pritam Singh Dhaliwal’s case (supra). It was not a case  where  the  appellant  had  laid  a  claim  to promotion  on  the  basis  of  the  officiating  status conferred on him, but had prayed only for the pay which was admissible to incumbents working on the  said  posts  and  performing  similar  duties. Resultantly,  therefore,  if  the  respondents  had extracted  work  from  him  as  Joint  Director  and Additional Director, he would certainly be entitled to pay as is admissible to the regular incumbents

1  2004 (4) RSJ 599

3

working  on  the  said  posts,  regardless  of  any condition  that  may  have  been  sought  to  be imposed upon him.”

Being of this view, the High Court allowed the appeal

and directed that the appellant therein would be entitled to

salary  of  posts  of  Joint  Director  and  Additional  Director,

Panchayats  for the period he worked as such.

3. It is apt to note here that the stand of the State before

the Division Bench was that the view of the learned single

Judge was correct inasmuch as the orders passed posting

the appellant on officiating posts incorporated a condition

that he would continue to draw his pay in the pay scale of

Deputy Director, Panchayat and no extra financial benefit

would  be  given  to  him  for  the  officiating  charge.

Additionally, it was asserted that the officer concerned had

submitted to the said terms and conditions and not raised

any protest.

4. We have heard Ms. Uttara Babbar, learned counsel for

the appellant and Mr. R.K. Kapoor, learned counsel for the

respondent.

4

5. This Court today in the case of “The State of Punjab

& Another v. Dharam Pal”, Civil Appeal No. 1549 of 2011,

after referring to the authorities in Smt. P. Grover v. State

of  Haryana  and  another2 and  Secretary-cum-Chief

Engineer, Chandigarh v. Hari Om Sharma and others3

and appreciating the similar factual matrix has held thus:

“In the  instant  case,  the  Rules do not  prohibit grant of pay scale. The decision of the High Court granting  the  benefit  gets  support  from  the principles laid down in  Smt. P.  Grover (supra) and  Hari  Om  Sharma (supra).  As  far  as  the authority in A. Francis (supra) is concerned, we would like to observe that the said case has to rest on its own facts.  We may clearly state that by  an  incorporation  in  the  order  or  merely  by giving an undertaking in all circumstances would not debar an employee to claim the benefits  of the officiating position. We are disposed to think that the controversy is covered by the ratio laid down  in   Hari  Om  Sharma (supra)  and resultantly  we hold  that  the  view expressed by the High Court is absolute impeccable.”    

6. The learned counsel for the State of Punjab referring to

the Punjab Civil  Services Rules (for short,  “Rules”),  urged

that the respondent was not eligible to hold the post. Be it

noted, the said stand was not taken before the High Court

and, in any case, we are disposed to think that when the

respondent had worked in the officiating post and had been

2  AIR 1983 SC 1060 3  (1998) 5 SCC 87

5

granted  the  benefits  by  the  High  Court,  he  should  be

extended the said benefits.  Had there been a contest on the

score  of  eligibility  of  the  respondent,  possibly  the  matter

would have been different. That not being the fact situation,

we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the

High Court.

7. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the order

passed by the High Court and accordingly the appeal, being

devoid of merit, stands dismissed.  There shall be no order

as to costs.  

  ............................................CJI      [Dipak Misra]  

   ...............................................J.     [A.M. Khanwilkar]  

   ...............................................J.     [Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud]  

New Delhi; September 05, 2017.