Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the salary of the post of Sub Divisional Officer for the period the petitioners have discharged duties of such higher post.
(2.) IT is the case of the petitioners that while working as Junior Engineers in the Irrigation Wing of the Bhakra Beas Management Board -the respondent herein, they are given the duties and responsibilities of the higher post of Sub Divisional Officer in their own pay scale from the year 2001. A copy of the said order has been attached as Annexure P1. The said order of Annexure P1 has been amended on 30 -08 -2001 vide order Annexure R1 wherein the petitioners were directed to see the work of higher post in addition to their own duties without any extra remuneration. It is the case of the petitioners that for the period, the petitioners discharged the duties of higher post, they are entitled to pay attached with the said post. Reliance is placed upon two Division Bench judgments of this Court titled as Balbir Singh Dalal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., 2002(4) STC 422 and Pritam Singh Dhaliwal v. State of Punjab and Anr., 2004(4) RSJ 599. Controverting the said stand, the learned Counsel for the respondent has raised two -fold arguments. Firstly, the writ petition suffers from gross delay and laches. It is contended that the petitioners were assigned the duties of the higher post in the year 2001 but they have approached this Court in the year 2006. Still further, petitioners No. 1 to 5 have approached this Court after attaining the age of superannuation. It is also contended that the petitioners were not promoted but assigned the duties of the higher post in their own pay scale. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramakant Shripad Sinai Advalpalkar v. : AIR1991SC1145 , the petitioners are not entitled to the pay scale attached with the higher post. In any case, it is contended that the petitioners were already drawing the pay scale, which is admissible to the Sub Divisional Officer under the benefit of time bound promotional scale, therefore, the petitioners claim is untenable. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the stand of the learned Counsel for the respondent. The fact remains that as per the order Annexure P1 as amended vide order Annexure R1, the petitioners have been asked to discharge the duties of the higher post. Once the petitioners have been discharged the duties of the higher post, they are entitled to the pay scale of the higher post. Such is the view taken by this Court in the aforesaid judgments relying upon the earlier Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Smt. P. Grover v. : [1983]3SCR654 .
(3.) IN fact, the judgment relied upon by the respondent has also been considered in Balbir Singh Dalal's case (supra) but after considering the said judgment, it was held that the petitioners are entitled to the pay scale for the period they discharged the duties of such higher post.;