http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SMT. P. GROVER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/08/1983

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)

CITATION:  1983 AIR 1060            1983 SCR  (3) 654  1983 SCC  (4) 291        1983 SCALE  (2)172

ACT:      Civil Service-Can a person promoted to a post on acting basis be  denied the benefit of the scale of pay attached to the post ? 6      The  appellant   was  promoted  as-an  acting  District Education officer  but the  order of  promotion contained  a super-added condition  that she  would continue  to draw her salary in  her existing scale of pay as a teacher. She filed a writ  petition contending that she was entitled to the pay of a  District Education  Officer but the same was dismissed by the High Court.      Allowing the appeal,

HEADNOTE:      HELD: The  counter affidavit  filed on  behalf  of  the Government of  Haryana offers  no rational  explanation  for denying  the  pay  of  District  Education  officer  to  the appellant  after   she  was  promoted  to  act  as  District Education Officer.  In the  absence of  any rule  justifying such refusal  to pay to an officer promoted to a higher post the salary of such higher post, the appellant is entitled to be paid  the salary of a District Education officer from the date she was promoted to the post. [655 F-G]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6229 of 1983.      Appeal by  Special leave  from the  Judgment and  order dated the  29th May,  1980 of  the Punjab  and Haryana  High Court in C.W.P. No. 1225 of 1980.      K.G. Bhagat,  Addl. Soliciter  General and  K. K. Mohan for the appellant.      R. N. Poddar For the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by:      CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. Special leave granted. 655      Smt. P.  Grover was an outstanding teacher. In 1968-69, the Government  of Haryana  honoured her  by presenting  the State  Award   for  teachers.   She  attained   the  age  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

superannuation on  August 2s0,  1978. About two years before she attained  the age of superannuation, she was promoted as acting District  Education Officer with effect from July 19, 1976. The  Government of Haryana had taken a policy decision as early  as in  1965 that the Services of teachers, who had received the  National or  State Awards,  should be extended until they  attained the age of 60 years, on an year by year basis,  if   their  service  record  continued  to  be  good otherwise. Pursuant  to the  policy decision,  Smt. Grover’s services were  extended first  by  one  year  and  later  by another year. During the period of extension of service, she worked as  Principal, Government  Higher  Secondary  School, Mahendergarh. She finally retired from service on August 31, 1980.      We  mentioned  that  she  was  promoted  as  an  acting District Education  officer with  effect from July 19, 1976. The order  of promotion  contained a  super-added  condition that she would draw her own pay scale which apparently meant that she  would continue to draw her salary on her pay scale prior to promotion. The initial order extending her services recited that  she was  an acting District Education Officer, but contained a super-added condition that her pay would not be more  than the  maximum of  the Principal’s  grade.  Smt. Grover  claims   that  having   been  promoted  as  District Education officer, she was entitled to the pay of a District Education officer and there was no justification for denying the same  to her. A writ petition filed by her was dismissed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and she is before us by way  of special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution. The counter-affidavit  filed on  behalf of the Government of Haryana offers  no rational  explanation for denying the pay of District  Education Officer  to Smt.  P. Grover after she was promoted  to act as District Education officer. All that was said  in the  counter-affidavit was  that there  were no Class-I post  available and  therefore, she was not entitled to be  paid the salary of District Education officer. We are unable to  understand  the  reason  given  in  the  counter- affidavit.  She   was  promoted  to  the  post  of  District Education officer,  a Class-I  post, on an acting basis. Our attention was  not invited  to any  rule which provides that promotion on  an acting  basis would not entitle the officer promoted to  the pay of the post. In the absence of any rule justifying such  refusal to  pay to an officer promoted to a higher post the salary of such higher post (the 656 validity of such a rule would be doubtful if it existed), we must hold that Smt. Grover is entitled to be paid the salary of a  District Education  officer  from  the  date  she  was promoted to  the post,  that is,  July 19,  1976, until  she retired from  service on  August 31,  1980.  The  appeal  is accordingly allowed with costs. H.L.C.                                       Appeal allowed. 657