Smt. P. Grover Vs. State of Haryana
& ANR  INSC 98 (18 August 1983)
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA
(J) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
CITATION: 1983 AIR 1060 1983 SCR (3) 654 1983
SCC (4) 291 1983 SCALE (2)172
Civil Service-Can a person promoted to a post
on acting basis be denied the benefit of the scale of pay attached to the post
? 6 The appellant was promoted as-an acting District Education officer but the
order of promotion contained a super-added condition that she would continue to
draw her salary in her existing scale of pay as a teacher. She filed a writ
petition contending that she was entitled to the pay of a District Education
Officer but the same was dismissed by the High Court.
Allowing the appeal,
HELD: The counter affidavit filed on behalf
of the Government of Haryana offers no rational explanation for denying the pay
of District Education officer to the appellant after she was promoted to act as
District Education Officer. In the absence of any rule justifying such refusal
to pay to an officer promoted to a higher post the salary of such higher post,
the appellant is entitled to be paid the salary of a District Education officer
from the date she was promoted to the post. [655 F-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 6229 of 1983.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and
order dated the 29th May, 1980 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P.
No. 1225 of 1980.
K.G. Bhagat, Addl. Soliciter General and K.
K. Mohan for the appellant.
R. N. Poddar For the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by:
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. Special leave granted.
655 Smt. P. Grover was an outstanding
teacher. In 1968-69, the Government of Haryana honoured her by presenting the
State Award for teachers. She attained the age of superannuation on August 2s0,
1978. About two years before she attained the age of superannuation, she was
promoted as acting District Education Officer with effect from July 19, 1976.
The Government of Haryana had taken a policy decision as early as in 1965 that
the Services of teachers, who had received the National or State Awards, should
be extended until they attained the age of 60 years, on an year by year basis,
if their service record continued to be good otherwise. Pursuant to the policy
decision, Smt. Grover's services were extended first by one year and later by
another year. During the period of extension of service, she worked as
Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Mahendergarh. She finally
retired from service on August 31, 1980.
We mentioned that she was promoted as an
acting District Education officer with effect from July 19, 1976.
The order of promotion contained a
super-added condition that she would draw her own pay scale which apparently
meant that she would continue to draw her salary on her pay scale prior to
promotion. The initial order extending her services recited that she was an
acting District Education Officer, but contained a super-added condition that
her pay would not be more than the maximum of the Principal's grade. Smt. Grover
claims that having been promoted as District Education officer, she was
entitled to the pay of a District Education officer and there was no
justification for denying the same to her. A writ petition filed by her was
dismissed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and she is before us by way
of special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution.
The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the
Government of Haryana offers no rational explanation for denying the pay of
District Education Officer to Smt. P. Grover after she was promoted to act as
District Education officer. All that was said in the counter-affidavit was that
there were no Class-I post available and therefore, she was not entitled to be
paid the salary of District Education officer. We are unable to understand the
reason given in the counter- affidavit. She was promoted to the post of
District Education officer, a Class-I post, on an acting basis. Our attention
was not invited to any rule which provides that promotion on an acting basis
would not entitle the officer promoted to the pay of the post. In the absence
of any rule justifying such refusal to pay to an officer promoted to a higher
post the salary of such higher post (the 656 validity of such a rule would be
doubtful if it existed), we must hold that Smt. Grover is entitled to be paid
the salary of a District Education officer from the date she was promoted to
the post, that is, July 19, 1976, until she retired from service on August 31,
1980. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs.
H.L.C. Appeal allowed.