IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 221 CWP-13725-2021 Date of decision: 23.07.2026 Satnam Singh .....Petitioner Versus Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present : Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sehaj Bir Singh, Advocate with Ms. Muskan Gill, Advocate for the respondents-PSPCL. **** NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari, for setting aside the office order No.141 dated 13.03.2020 (Annexure P-9), passed by respondent No.2, whereby the claims of the petitioner with regard to grant of pay scale of Sub Station Attendant (SSA) for the period when he was assigned and had performed the duties of the higher post of SSA under various offices of the respondents on the basis of principles of 'equal pay for equal work', and the benefit of option regarding the promotional increments on account of the promotion from Assistant Lineman (ALM) to Sub Station Attendant (SSA), as requested by the petitioner, as per Rules and Regulations of the respondents-Corporation, have been rejected. 2. The brief facts, as have been pleaded in the present VINAY 2026.07.27 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-13725-2021 -2- petition, are that the petitioner joined Punjab State Electricity Board [now Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (for short, 'PSPCL')] on 20.02.1989 as Work Charge/T-Mate and his services were regularised as regular T-Mate on 01.01.1997. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Lineman, and subsequently to the next higher post of Sub Station Attendant, vide order dated 02.11.2018. During his tenure, as Assistant Lineman, the petitioner was directed to perform the duties of the post of Sub Station Attendant for the following period:- “a. From 05/11/2009 to 03/12/2009 at Wadala Viram, b. From 08/02/2010 to 31/12/2010 at sub-station Ajnala, c. From 04/01/2011 to 07/11/2012 at sub-station Ramdas, d. From 08/11/2012 to 28/01/2014 at Chak Dogran, e. From 09/01/2014 to 22/04/2015 at Gaggomahal.” 2A. However, despite performing the duties attached to the post of Sub Station Attendant, he was being paid salary attached to the post of Assistant Lineman. Consequently, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 11.08.2019 (Annexure P-7). However, when no action was taken, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP- 29410-2019 titled as 'Satnam Singh v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others'. The same was disposed of, vide order dated 22.10.2019 (Annexure P-8), with directions to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner. In compliance to the same, order dated 13.03.2020 (Annexure P-9) has been passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has performed the duties of the higher post, he was entitled for the grant of pay and allowances for the said post, which have been VINAY 2026.07.27 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-13725-2021 -3- denied to the petitioner and is thus, against the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. In support, he has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Sukhpreet Singh and others v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others : 2024 NCPHHC 9924. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, while referring to the averments in the written statement, submits that though the petitioner has performed the duties of the higher post, however, in the office order, whereby he was assigned the duty of the higher post, it was specifically stated that he will not be entitled to receive any additional allowance and overtime. Having accepted the said condition, the petitioner cannot claim the pay and allowances of the post of Sub Station Attendant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The issue involved in the present case is as to whether an employee is entitled for the grant of pay and allowances of the higher post on which he has performed the duties, is not res-integra. This Court in Sukhpreet Singh's case (supra), while considering the similar issue, has held as under:- “xx xx xx xx xx 8. The petitioners, who were working as Assistant Accounts Officers, have been posted against the posts of Accounts Officers after they had rendered service of more than 05 years as Assistant Accounts Officers. Once the petitioners have performed the duties of the posts of Accounts Officers, they cannot be denied the pay scale of the said post. The condition that the petitioners shall be placed in their own pay scale of Assistant Accounts Officer without any financial benefit is totally arbitrary and not sustainable. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment passed in VINAY 2026.07.27 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-13725-2021 -4- Smt. P. Grover’s case (supra) has held that the officer promoted to higher post on acting basis is entitled to salary of such higher post. The relevant para of the said judgment reads as under :- “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 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 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 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 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.” 10. To the same effect is the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Vs. Hari Om Sharma : 1998 AIR (SC) 2909. In the said case the employee was promoted as Junior VINAY 2026.07.27 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-13725-2021 -5- Engineer-I in stop-gap arrangement and he had given the undertaking that on the basis of stop-gap arrangement, he would not claim promotion as of right nor would he claim any benefit pertaining to that post. The said argument was rejected by Hon’ble Supreme Court and it was held that the Government being model employer cannot be permitted to make such an argument. 11. Similarly in the case of Selva Raj Vs. Lt. Governor of Island, Port Blair : 1999(2) S.C.T. 286 the employee looked after the duties of higher post and he worked though temporarily and in an officiating capacity, however, it was held that he was entitled to draw salary attached to the higher post during the time he actually worked on that post. To the same effect are the judgments passed in State of Punjab and another Vs. Dharam Pal : 2017 AIR SC 4438; Gurmej Singh Vs. State of Punjab : 1995 (3) S.C.T. 279; Balbir Singh Dalal and others Vs. State of Haryana and another : 2002(4) S.C.T. 422 and Pritam Singh Dhaliwal Vs. State of Punjab and another : 2004(6) SLR 758. 12. In view of the above factual position and the law laid down in the above said judgments, the present petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release the pay and allowances of the post of Accounts Officers w.e.f. the date the petitioners have assumed the charge of Accounts Officers, with all consequential benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.” 7. The abovesaid judgment has been upheld by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.1061 of 2024 titled as ‘Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala v. Sukhpreet Singh and others’ decided on 30.04.2024 : 2024 NCPHHC 59356, by recording the following findings :- “xx xx xx xx xx 2. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition had granted the benefit of pay and allowances of the higher post of Accounts Officer from the date the writ petitioners assumed the charge as such with all consequential benefits which were payable within a period of three months. The reliance by the learned Single Judge as such was upon the various judgements of the Apex Court as well as this Court which hold the field. The said judgements read as under:- VINAY 2026.07.27 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-13725-2021 -6- “State of Punjab and another Vs. Dharam Pal : 2017(4)S.C.T. 460; Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Vs. Hari Om Sharma : 1998(3) S.C.T. 90; Selva Raj Vs. Lt. Governor of Island, Port Blair : 1999 (2) S.C.T. 286; Smt. P. Grover Vs. State of Haryana : 1983(4) SCC 291; Pritam Singh Dhaliwal Vs. State of Punjab and another : 2004(4) S.C.T. 403; Balbir Singh Dalai and others Vs. State of Haryana and another : 2002(4) S.C.T. 422 and Gurmej Singh Vs. State of Punjab : 1995(3) S.C.T.279.” 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has tried to convince us that the writ petitioners were estopped as such since their posting orders specifically said that they would be working on their own pay scale without any financial benefits and, therefore, having accepted the said posting orders way-back in 2013, they could not agitate for their grievances. 4. We are not convinced with the said argument. It is settled principle that the employer is always in a position of dominance and, therefore, merely because the said incorporation had been made in the order as such would not estop the writ petitioners from seeking their legal rights as such. Having taken the work and the responsibility of a higher post, the model employer should have gracefully acceded to the request and the demand of the higher pay/emoluments for the post which they held charge. It is also not disputed that thereafter they have also earned their promotions to the said post and in such circumstances once having the requisite qualifications also there was no escape for the appellant, but to dole out the necessary financial benefits. 5. The Full Bench judgement of this Court in Subhash Chander Vs State of Haryana and others, 2012(1) RSJ 442 also granted the said benefit as such that if the additional charge is given then the higher pay attached to the higher post for additional work involving higher responsibilities deserves to be paid. The above well settled legal proposition is being consistently followed till date. Reference is made to another judgment of the coordinate Bench in Pritam Singh Dhaliwal vs. State of Punjab and another, (2004) 6 SLR 758 (DB). In the said case, higher pay had been claimed for having performed the duties of Deputy Director of Panchayat/Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development) from time to time pursuant to the orders passed by the Government while holding a lower substantive post i.e. District Development and Panchayat Officer. It was held therein that if a person is asked to perform the duties regularly though in officiating capacity or on current duty charge or as a temporary VINAY 2026.07.27 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-13725-2021 -7- measure, the said person would be entitled to the higher pay i.e. the pay which is payable while performing the duties in higher/promotional post. In the said case also, the petitioner therein had continued to work on the higher post in officiating capacity till his superannuation. 6. Reference can also be made to the judgement by another coordinate Bench passed in LPA-1491-2016, titled State of Haryana vs. Sita Ram, decided on 27.11.2019, wherein the issue was of holding current duty charge of the post of BDPO in the pay-scale of Social Education and Panchayat Officer. The incumbent in that case continued working as such on the higher post on current duty charge, but was paid the salary of Social Education and Panchayat Officer, his substantive post. After considering and applying the ratio and dictum of the judgments of the Apex Court in Arindam Chattopadhyay vs. State of W.B., (2013) 4 SCC 152 and State of Punjab vs. Dharam Pal, (2017) 9 SCC 395, the Division Bench declined to exercise jurisdiction against challenge to the writ petition having been allowed, whereby the petitioner therein was held entitled to the salary for the higher post for the period he held current duty charge. 7. It is never the case as such that the writ petitioners were ineligible for promotion to the said post and rather it has been averred that they would be considered for regular promotion as per their eligibility and seniority. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the judgement of the learned Single Judge as such does not suffer from any infirmity which would warrant interference. 8. The appeal being meritless, accordingly, stands dismissed.” 8. To the similar effect is the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of Punjab v. B.K. Dhir : 2017(4) SCT 399. 9. In the present case, it is not disputed that the petitioner was assigned and had discharged the duties of the post of Sub Station Attendant during the periods as narrated in para 3 of the petition. However, the respondents are denying the corresponding pay and allowances solely on the basis of the stipulation contained in the office order. Such a stipulation cannot override the settled legal position. Once the petitioner had admittedly discharged the duties of the higher VINAY 2026.07.27 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-13725-2021 -8- post, he became entitled to the pay and allowances attached. 10. Consequently, the present petition is partly allowed. The petitioner is held entitled for the pay and allowances of the post of Sub Station Attendant for the period(s) the petitioner has performed the duties of the said post as narrated in para 3 of the petition. Necessary benefits shall be released to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 11. So far as the second claim of the petitioner to keep his old date of increment i.e. 1st November of every year on promotion from Assistant Lineman to Sub Station Attendant on 05.11.2018 instead of 1st January is concerned, the petitioner shall be at liberty to submit a detailed representation to the respondent, within a period of four weeks from today, which shall be considered and disposed of by the competent authority by passing a speaking order, within the above stipulated period. 12. Disposed of in the above terms. 23.07.2026 (NAMIT KUMAR) Vinay JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VINAY 2026.07.27 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment