- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri Siddharth Dhaon, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Shree Prakash Singh, learned Counsel representing respondent Nos.2 to 4.
(2.) Learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant-petitioner claiming pay-scale on which the appellant-petitioner was given officiating charge. The Office Order of 2013 by which the officiating charge was given to the appellant clearly indicated that no additional perks or salary would be admissible. The appellant having accepted the same and having worked for more than four years, but did not agitate about the salary right from beginning, we are not inclined to entertain such a request and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi has vehemently urged that two decisions of the Supreme Court clearly lay down that where an employee is working on a higher post, may be on officiating basis, he would be entitled for the higher pay scale of the post on which he is officiating. Reliance has been placed upon the following two judgments:- (i) Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh v. Hari Om Sharma and others, 1998 5 SCC 87 (ii) State of Punjab v. B. K. Dhir, 2017 9 SCC 337;