Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 87 (HP)

J. P. SINGH v. STATE OF H. P.

2006-04-04

B.S.CHAUHAN, M.R.VERMA

body2006
JUDGEMENT M.R. Verma, J. (Retd.) Chairman.: In this original application the applicant has prayed that the respondents may be directed to finalise the proceedings of the departmental promotion Committee held on May 25, 1998 for filling up the post of Principal, Rajiv Gandhi Ayurvedic College Paprola or to rehold the meeting of such Committee and consider the applicant for such promotion and fill up the said post. It is further prayed that on promotion as Principal fix the pay of the applicant from the date of issue of notification Annexure-A/2 whereby he has designated as Principal. 2. It may be pointed out at the very outset that during the pendency of this original application the applicant was promoted as Principal on regular basis on recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee, therefore the relief claimed qua regular promotion as Principal having become infructuous was not passed. The only question which now survives for determination is whether the applicant is entitled to the pay and allowances as payable to a Principal, for the period he worked as such pursuant to the notification Annexure-A/2. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondent. 4. It is not in dispute that vide notification Annexure-A/2 the applicant was designated as Principal for all academic affairs of the College in question and it is so mentioned in the notification. The applicant claims that he should be paid the salary for, the period from the date of notification Annexure/A-2 till he regular appointment as Principal of promotion as admissible to Principal. It is however the case of the respondent that after issue of Annexure-A/2 and before his promotion as Principal on September 7, 1998 the Administrator of the said College was ordered to look after the work of the Principal till further orders vide notification dated January 7, 1998 and he continued to work as such till promotion of the applicant. The applicant has nowhere disclosed this fact in the application nor explained as to why he was entitled for salary as Principal during the period Annexure-R/2 remain operative that is from January 7, 1998 till the date of promotion of the applicant w. e. f. September 7, 1998. Applicant has not controverted the factual position in this regard by filing any counter to the reply of the respondent. Applicant has not controverted the factual position in this regard by filing any counter to the reply of the respondent. Thus in view of these unrebutted facts it can be safely said that applicant worked as designated Principal only for the period from May 8, 1997 to January 6, 1998 and not till the date of his promotion. Therefore, he is not entitled for the salary of Principal for the period from January 7, 1998 to September 7, 1998. 5. It is clearly admitted by the respondents in their reply that the applicant remained designated Principal during the period from May 8, 1997 to January 6, 1998. However, it is claimed that it was purely a stop gap arrangement in the interest of the students community. Admittedly the applicant was not paid the salary as payable to a Principal. 6. The applicant who was a professor at the relevant time was admittedly; designated and required to discharge the duties of a Principal and thus he was required to discharge higher duties and responsibility, therefore the pay and allowances of a Principal could not have been denied to him for the period he actually worked as Principal. To hold the contrary would not only be against public policy and the principle of quantum merit but also against law. 7. In Selvaraj vs. Lt. Governor of Insland Port Blair and others (1998 (4) RSJ 220 while dealing with almost a similar question as in hand, held as under:- “It is not in dispute that the appellant looked after the duties of Secretary (Scouts) from the date of the order and his salary was to be drawn against the post of secretary (Scouts) under GFR 77. Still he was not paid the said salary for the work done by him as Secretary (Scouts). It is of course true that the appellant was not regularly promoted to the said post. It is also true as stated in the counter affidavit to Deputy Resident Commissioner, Andaman & Nicobar Administration that the appellant was regularly posted in the pay appellant was regularly posted in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 and he was asked to look after the duties of Secretary (Scouts) as per the order aforesaid. It is also true as stated in the counter affidavit to Deputy Resident Commissioner, Andaman & Nicobar Administration that the appellant was regularly posted in the pay appellant was regularly posted in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 and he was asked to look after the duties of Secretary (Scouts) as per the order aforesaid. It is also true that had this arrangement not been done, he would have to be transferred to the interior islands where the post of PST was available, but the appellant was keen to stay in Port Blair as averred in the said counter. However, in our view, these averments in the counter will not change the real position. Fact remains that the appellant has worked on the 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." 8. In Secretary cum Chief Engineer Chandigarh versus Hari Om Sharma and others (1998) 5 SCC 87) wherein promotion was given to the applicant as stop gap arrangement on his giving undertaking that he would not claim promotion and other benefits on the basis of such promotion, the salary of the promotional post was not released to him, the Apex Court held that even where a person is promoted in stop gap arrangement that by itself will not make difference to his claim for salary for that post. It was further held that if a person is posted to officiate on a higher post with greater responsibilities he is normally entitled to salary of that post. 9. In view of above legal and factual position we hold that the applicant is entitled for the salary of Principal for the period May 8, 1997 to January 6, 1993 but not for the remaining period. 9. In view of above legal and factual position we hold that the applicant is entitled for the salary of Principal for the period May 8, 1997 to January 6, 1993 but not for the remaining period. As a result this original application is allowed took the extent that respondents are directed to pay the difference of salary of the Principal at the relevant time for the period from May 8, 1997 to January 6, 1998 during which period the applicant worked as Principal. The difference amount of salary to be paid within two months failing which such amount will be payable with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date when the salary was payable till the date of payment. Rest of the claims are dismissed. No costs.