- (1.) Notice of motion. Mr. Anshul Gupta, AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and waives service on them.
(2.) Having regard to the order passed by this Court on 3.11.2012 in CWP No. 21901 of 2012 and the recent order dated 4.7.2014 passed in CWP No. 13349 of 2014, it would suffice to say that the present matter is squarely covered by those decisions and nothing further is required or can be said regarding the rights of the petitioners for arrears of difference of pay for discharging duties of the higher post temporarily under office orders. The principle on which the judgments rest are well recognized and based on the doctrine of quantum merit which guarantees equal pay for performing the duties of the higher post in a temporary arrangement depending on the exigencies of administration so that the higher post is not left unmanned. This principle has been entrenched into the law by the Supreme Court in Smt. P. Grover v. State of Haryana and another, 1983 AIR(SC) 1060 which precedent has since ruled the roost.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has supplied a copy of the petition to the learned counsel for the respondents in court today to which a written statement is not found necessary by this Court in view of the order proposed to be passed and for obvious reasons, which are; that the State can have no legitimate defence against the settled principle. If the State and its functionaries cannot hand over such benefits on their own, for which the petitioners are entitled to, and to discharge their fundamental administrative duties while holding office and still expect the Court every time to pass such orders in routine to grant the deserved relief, then it is high time for the respondents to activate their duties in treating its employees similarly situated to those who have court decrees passed already in their favour and keep claims pending without any rhyme or reason and are being deprived of their legitimate rights without redress compelling them to institute litigation before the Court only because an officer concerned lacks the will to perform his duty enjoined by law while remaining blissfully unconcerned and apathetic with the plight of others. Too much time has been taken by the respondent department to settle the claims for this court to ignore inordinate delay which has caused considerable financial loss to the petitioners by the inaction on the part of the respondents. Therefore, this petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- against the State and in favour of the petitioners to be shared equally between them. The inaction is condemned. A writ is issued to the respondents to pass final order within 21 days of receipt of a copy of this order in the light of the aforesaid settled law.;