- (1.)On August 15, 1993, the State Government, issued an order by which 6 officers including the petitioner were posted as Divisional Soil Conservation Officers. The petitioner on the date of the issue of the issue of this order was working as Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, Patti. He was ordered to be posted as Divisional Soil Conservation Officer, Amritsar ''against a vacant post''. The petitioner claims that ''the new post involves the assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance.'' As such, in view of the provisions of Rule 4.4 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules , Vol-I, Part-I, he is entitled to draw ''as initial pay the stage of the time-scale next above the substantive pay in respect of the old post.'' According to the petitioner, he was drawing a basic pay of Rs. 4125/- on the old post. He, accordingly, claims that after grant of an increment, a basic pay of Rs. 4250/- should be given to him with effect from August 16, 1993.
(2.)The respondent contests the petitioner's claim. It has been stated that vide notification dated June 30, 1993, the State Govt. had reorganised the whole Department. The pay scales of Rs. 2200-4000, Rs. 3000-4500 and Rs. 3700-5300 were prescribed. On completion of 8 years of service, a person who had joined the service in the scale of Rs. 2200-4000 was entitled to be placed in the scale of Rs. 3000-4500. On completion of 18 yeas of service an officer becomes entitled to be placed in the scale of Rs. 3700-5300. The petitioner had, on his own, decided to remain in the old scale of pay. As a result, he continued to work in the scale of Rs. 2200-4900 as an Assistant Soil Conservation Officer. The old scale of the post of Divisional Soil Conservation Officer was Rs. 2400-4000. The petitioner cannot claim benefit of higher responsibilities in the ''three pattern scales of pay'' as prescribed with effect from January 1, 1991. It has also been pointed out that the petitioner's pay had been fixed by Conservator of Soils, Jalandhar vide his letter No. 4349 dated September 6, 1993. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure R-4 with the written statement. The ''word 'promotion' in the pay fixation order'' is not in conformity with the order dated August 15, 1993. An increment is admissible when a person is appointed to a higher post. In the present case, the petitioner was not appointed to higher post. He was merely ''posted on another cadre post''. On this basis, the respondent claims that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit claimed by him.
(3.)The petitioner has filed the petition unaided by any counsel. He has presented his case in person. The solitary contention raised by him is that on his appointment or on being posted as a Divisional Soil Conservation Officer, he was entitled to the grant of an increment whereby his basic pay would have risen from Rs. 4125/- to Rs. 4250/-. On the other hand, Ms. Thakur appearing for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner having not been promoted to the post of Divisional Soil Conservation Officer, he was not entitled to the grant of the an additional increment.