K. Kannan, J. - (1.) BOTH the writ petitions are connected and are being disposed of together. The facts are enumerated from C.W.P. No. 12818 of 2000. The writ petition is the result of its action in allowing for an officiation of Assistant Director of Youth Services to a higher post as Deputy Director since 17.03.1989. This Court has passed an order in C.W.P. No. 7440 of 1991 on 18.07.1991 allowing for the petitioner to continue in the post as a Deputy Director as additional charge to the post which he held substantively as the Assistant Director. It appears that the State has filed an application to vacate the order on a plea that he was lower in rank to six other persons who were above him in the order of seniority but the attempt by the State was rejected. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner has secured the premature retirement on 31.07.2005. On that he pleads that he should be paid the benefits applicable to the higher post which he held from 17.03.1989 till 2005 initially on express orders passed by the State and subsequently to be continued by virtue of the order passed by the Division Bench in the above case referred to. The contention of the State is that the Director who passed the order allowing for the petitioner to officiate as a Deputy Director was not competent and hence, it was not valid. I asked the State counsel to take me to the particular rule position that would show the person who was competent to allow for such temporary officiation to a higher post to the Assistant Director. The State Counsel would point out to me that the service of the petitioner was regulated through Punjab Class I Service Rules which was notified on 23.08.1988. The Rules provide, inter alia, for a power to transfer on the same terms and condition as are specified under Rule 3.17 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules by virtue of Rule 11. Rule 3.18 of the Civil Service Rules refers to the power of the Government to transfer employee from one post to another on account of inefficiency or mis -behavior or on his written request. A Government employee shall not be transferred substantively to or in excess in a case covered under Rule 4.22 appointed to officiate in a post carrying last pay than the pay of the permanent post on which he holds a lien. Rule 4.22 covers, inter alia, situations when a person could be directed to hold more than two or more independent posts. This rule had been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Pritam Singh Dhaliwal's case referred to below. The 1988 Rules that govern the Punjab Youth Services do not, therefore, stipulate anything which Punjab Civil Services Rules do not prescribe. It is under a similar situation of officiation to a higher post that a Division Bench was making its reference and holding that the scales admissible to the higher post has to be given.
(2.) IN this case, it will mean perpetration of a gross injustice by the State to allow for a person to officiate in a higher post for well 23 years and to defend an action for claiming the benefit by a plea that an officiation for 23 years must be taken as temporary and that too must be taken as illegal. The order passed by the Director so long as it was not shown to be illegal and when there was an order passed by this Court allowing for such officiation, the petitioner must be entitled to all the benefits that are applicable to the higher post. The point has also been considered by Division Bench of this Court in Pritam Singh Dhaliwal v. State of Punjab and another,, 2004 (4) S.C.T. 403 that has considered the issue of the entitlement to a higher post for a person who has carried out the duties of a higher post. The case dealt with officiation of duties of Deputy Director of Panchayat/Additional Deputy Commissioner from time to time and the same was considered with reference to Rules 4.22 and 4.13 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol. 1 Part 1 and 2. To our benefit would be relevant the following provisions only: - "4.22 A competent authority may appoint one Government employee to hold substantively, as a temporary measure, or to officiate in, two or more independent posts at one time. In such cases, his pay is regulated as follows: - (a) the highest pay to which he would be entitled if his appointment to one of the posts stood alone, may be drawn on account of his tenure of that post; xxxx xxxx xxxx In terms of the said Rule and in light of the reasoning adopted by the Division Bench, the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefits of the scales applicable for the Deputy Director and the same shall be reckoned land paid to the petitioner with interest @ 9% from the date when the amounts fell due to the date when the amount is actually paid. The entire exercise shall be carried out within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(3.) THE writ petition in C.W.P. No. 12818 of 2000 is allowed with costs of Rs. 25,000/ - imposed against the Government.;