Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 992 (PAT)

Arun Kumar Sinha v. State Of Bihar

2000-08-11

N.PANDEY, S.K.CHATTOPADHYAYA

body2000
Judgment 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 24.11.1999 in C.W.J.C. No. 3686 of 1998, whereby the writ petition was partly dismissed with certain directions. 2. The writ application was filed for grant of regular promotion to the petitioner (appellant herein) in Junior Selection Grade on the post of Assistant Director, Plant Protection (Category5) in the replacement scale of Rs. 3000-4500/- with effect from 1.4.1986. 3. In the present appeal a grievance has been made only with respect to that part of the order whereby, claim of the appellant for payment of salary for dis- charging the duties on higher posts was rejected. Admittedly, the appellant had discharged the duties against different higher posts, as detailed in the impugned order. In that view of the matter, it was pointed out that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar & ors. V/s. State of Punjab & ors. A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 265, Selva Raj V/s. Lt. Governor of Land Port Blair & ors., A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 338 and a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Patna High Court Ministerial Officers Association, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi V/s. State of Bihar & ors., 1986 P.L.J.R. 358, since the appellant had discharged the duties on higher posts, he was entitled to the salary attached to such posts. Reference in this regard was also made to some of the unreported decisions of this Court including C.W.J.C. No. 8676 of 1997. It was also submitted that in the alternative, on the principle of equal pay for equal work also, the appellant was entitled to the salary of higher posts, since he was discharging the same duties as was being discharged by the Deputy Director and the Joint Director (Plant Protection.). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State pointed out that it is the prerogative of the Government that due to exigency of the work an employee holding lower post can be directed to discharge the duties of a higher post. At the time of making such arrangement, the seniority and other service condition of such a government employee is not at all to be looked into. At the time of making such arrangement, the seniority and other service condition of such a government employee is not at all to be looked into. Therefore, to safeguard the interest of such employees, under the Bihar Service Code Rule 103 has already been prescribed to pay additional pay not exceeding 20 percent of the substantive pay, to a government employee. 5. He further pointed out that the writ court had already taken notice of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramakant Shripad Sinai V/s. Union of India & ors., A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1145 where it was held that officiation on a higher post does not amount to promotion and in such cases the employee can not get salary of the higher post, but will get only charge allowances. 6. After hearing the learned Advocates, we have also perused the impugned order and in the facts and circumstances of the case find no reason to interfere with the same. Because in view of specific provision as prescribed under Rule 103 of the Bihar Service Code, to provide additional allowances, it would not be proper for the court to direct the authorities to make payment of full salary of the post. We have already noticed that there are certain cases where in exigency of work duties are also assigned, ignoring the seniority of the employee at a particular place. Therefore, save and except the benefit of additional pay as provided under Rule 103 any other financial benefit to such employee may be held detrimental to the interest of other similarly situated employee. It is a matter of common knowledge that a government employee always gets higher salary on promotion. It is not necessary for us to repeat that in order to grant promotion against a higher post and in order to get an employee higher scale attached to such post, various requirements are to be observed in accordance with the Service Rules and Regulations. The evaluation of such job for the purposes of pay scale must be left to the expert bodies and unless there are any malafidies, its evaluation should be accepted. 7. The evaluation of such job for the purposes of pay scale must be left to the expert bodies and unless there are any malafidies, its evaluation should be accepted. 7. Thus, keeping in mind the facts, stated above, as also the finding recorded by the writ court, we find no justification to direct the respondents to make payment of the salary of the higher posts for the period the appellant had performed the additional duties save and except the payment as prescribed under Rule 103 of the Code. 8. In the result for the reasons, stated above, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed.