CWP-21365-2017 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-21365-2017 (O&M) BALWANT RAI GAKHAR AND ORS. ..Petitioners Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ..Respondents Reserved on: 16.07.2026 Pronounced on : 29.07.2026 Uploaded on : 30.07.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. P.S. Khurana, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, AAG, Punjab. * * * * * SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant the petitioners salary of discharging the duties of higher post. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that admittedly the petitioners worked on higher post, therefore, he would be entitled to emoluments/salary for the higher post for discharging the duties of the same. He, therefore, prays that the present petition be allowed. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents contends that order due to which the petitioners were doing duty of higher post was not passed by the competent authority and the order itself also stated that it is local MOHD AYUB 2026.07.30 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-21365-2017 (O&M) -2- arrangement and there will be no emoluments. She, therefore, prays for dismissal of the present writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole case file with their able assistance. 5. A perusal of the file shows that the only question involved in the present case is as to whether the employee, who is doing the duties of higher post is entitled to the emoluments/salary for the same. The question involved in the present writ petition is no more res integra. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. P. Grover Vs. State of Haryana, 1983(4) SCC 291, held that officer promoted to higher post on acting basis is entitled to salary of such higher post. 7. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:- “2. 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 superannuation on August 20. 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 extention of service, she worked as Principal, Government Higher Secondary School. Mahendergarh. She finally retired from service on August 31, 1980. MOHD AYUB 2026.07.30 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-21365-2017 (O&M) -3- 3. We mentioned that she was promoted as an acting District Education Officer with effect from July 19, 1976. The order of promotion contained a superadded 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 superadded 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 Article 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 posts available and therefore she was not entitled to be paid the salarly 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 validity of such a rule would be doubtful if it existed), we must hold that Smt. Grover is entitled be paid the salary of a District Education Officer from the MOHD AYUB 2026.07.30 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-21365-2017 (O&M) -4- 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. Appeal allowed.” 8. In view of the above, the petitioners are held entitled to the emoluments/salary for discharging the duties of higher post. The respondents are directed to disburse the same within a period of six months, from today. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. 10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 29.07.2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Ayub/Saahil JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MOHD AYUB 2026.07.30 14:46 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.