CWP-7204- IN TH 217 Satnam Singh State of Punja CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. 226/227 of th mandamus di the petitioner had worked benefits by re them with in 1 -2023 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA CWP-7204 Date of Decis Singh and others VERSUS f Punjab and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. Bhavesh Ola, Advocate for for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Navkesh Singh, Advocate fo **** REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present civil writ petition 7 of the Constitution of India for issu mus directing the respondents to grant itioners for the posts of SDO and Juni orked on the said posts as Additiona s by revising their salaries and pay to ith interest thereon. A further writ NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 7204-2023 f Decision: February 26, 2026 .....Petitioner SUS ...Responden E HARPREET SINGH BRAR ate for Mr. Parvez Chugh, Advocate unjab. cate for respondent No.3. etition has been filed under Articles or issuance of a writ in the nature of grant the salary in the higher scale to d Junior Engineer for the period they itional Charge and all consequential pay to them the arrears so accruing to writ in the nature of mandamus is ioners ondents ocate rticles ure of ale to d they ential ing to s is PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.07 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7204- sought direct (Annexure P 2. petitioners ar was working charge of SD 12.12.2022 a working on charge of Jun on 29.01.201 date. Petition was given a regularized a on the regula Engineer on 19.08.2016. P Engineer and regularized a 3. claim regard discharged du a settled prop additional ch post, he beco 2 -2023 directing the respondents to decide th ure P-8) within some stipulated time p Learned counsel for the petition ners are employees of the Respondent rking on the regular post of Junior En of SDO on 28.03.2019. He worked 022 and was regularized as SDO on 1 g on the regular post of Pump Oper of Junior Engineer on the basis of his 1.2014 and is still working as Junior E etitioner No.3, was working on the reg iven additional charge of Junior Eng ized as Junior Engineer on 28.10.2021 regular post of Plumber and was giv on 29.01.2014 and was regula 016. Petitioner No.5 was working o er and was given additional charge o ized as SDO on 01.04.2021. Learned counsel for the petiti regarding the grant of higher salary rged duties of a higher post, in the writ d proposition of law, that once an em nal charge of a higher post and actual e becomes entitled to the salary attac cide the legal notice dated 23.02.2023 time period. etitioners inter alia contends that the ondent No.3 - Board. Petitioner No.1, ior Engineer and was given additional orked as SDO (additional charge) till O on 13.12.2022. Petitioner No.2, was Operator and was given additional of his Diploma in Civil Engineering unior Engineer (additional charge) till the regular post of Pump Operator and or Engineer on 29.01.2014 and was 0.2021. Petitioner No.4, was working as given additional charge of Junior regularized as Junior Engineer on king on the regular post of Assistant arge of SDO on 31.05.2017 and was petitioners further submits that the salary for the period the petitioners he writ petition is squarely covered by an employee is promoted or is given actually discharges the duties of that attached to such higher post for the .2023 at the No.1, itional e) till 2, was itional eering e) till or and d was rking Junior er on sistant d was at the ioners red by given f that or the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.07 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7204- entire period that there is n absence of administrativ Learned coun Hon'ble Supr SC 1060 and and others, authoritativel be denied the despite the s petitioners th additional ch dated 23.02.2 decided, the this Court by 4. petitioners ha State Govern Market Act, not maintain specific orde condition tha present post 3 -2023 period during which he performed thos ere is no justification for denying the e of any statutory rule permitting strative condition to the contrary w d counsel in this regard places his re e Supreme Court in Smt. P. Grover v and Arindam Chattopadhyay and ers, Civil Appeal No.25021 of itatively laid down that an employee w ied the salary attached thereto. Learn the settled legal position, the respon ners the salary of the higher post fo nal charge basis, compelling the peti 3.02.2023 (Annexure P-8). Since the d, the petitioners have been left with urt by way of filing the present writ pe Per contra, learned counsel for t ners have an alternative statutory reme overnment under Section 42 of the t Act, 1961, which they have not avai aintainable, that the petitioners were c orders (Annexures R-1, R-2, R- on that "no additional allowance or be t posting," which condition was ed those duties. It is further submitted g the salary of the higher post in the mitting such denial, and that any ary would be unsustainable in law. reliance on the judgments of the ver v. State of Haryana, 1983 AIR and others v. State of West Bengal of 2013, wherein it has been oyee working on a higher post cannot Learned counsel further submits that respondents have failed to grant the ost for the periods they worked on he petitioners to serve a legal notice ce the said legal notice has not been with no alternative but to approach writ petition. el for the respondents submits that the y remedy by way of an appeal to the of the Punjab Agricultural Produce ot availed, rendering the writ petition were given additional charge vide -3) which contained an express e or benefit will be paid in lieu of the was voluntarily accepted by the mitted in the t any law. of the AIR ngal been annot ts that nt the ed on notice t been roach at the to the oduce etition vide xpress of the y the PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.07 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7204- petitioners at they are now after several submits that pertain to ad notice dated 2 dated 29.08.2 petition infru 5. record with th 6. petition is wh charge basis period he act entitlement c charge that "n 7. additional ch duties of that No.1 worked Petitioner No over twelve charge) for o as Junior Eng 4 -2023 ners at the time of joining, and havin re now estopped from claiming any a everal years (in some cases up to 10 s that the present petition suffers from to additional charge given as far ba dated 23.02.2023 (Annexure P-8) has 9.08.2023 (Annexure R-4), rendering n infructuous. I have heard learned counsel f with their able assistance. The core issue that falls for de n is whether an employee who works o basis is entitled to the salary attach he actually discharges the duties of su ent can be defeated by a condition im that "no additional allowance or benef It is incontrovertible that each nal charge of a higher post and tha of that post for the periods mentioned orked as SDO (additional charge) fo ner No.2 has been working as Junior E elve years. Petitioner No.3 worked ) for over seven years before regulari ior Engineer (additional charge) for ov having done so without any protest, any additional allowance or benefit to 10 years), further learned counsel s from delay and laches as the claims far back as 2014. Further, the legal ) has already been decided vide letter dering the second prayer in the writ nsel for the parties and perused the for determination in the present writ orks on a higher post on an additional attached to that higher post for the s of such post, and if so, whether such tion imposed in the order of additional r benefit will be paid." ach of the petitioners was given nd that they actually discharged the tioned in the writ petition. Petitioner rge) for over three and a half years. unior Engineer (additional charge) for orked as Junior Engineer (additional egularization. Petitioner No.4 worked for over two and a half years before rotest, enefit unsel claims legal letter e writ he t writ itional he r such itional given d the itioner years. e) for itional orked before PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.07 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7204- regularization four years be 8. Grover v. St Justice O. Ch “3. W Educa promo own p draw h extend Educa would Grover Officer there w filed b and sh Consti of Har Distric to act affidav she w Officer affidav a Clas any Ru not en of any higher 5 -2023 ization. Petitioner No.5 worked as SD ars before regularization. A two Judge Bench of the Hon v. State of Haryana, AIR 1983 S O. Chinnappa Reddy observed as und . We mentioned that she was pr ucation Officer with effect from omotion contained a superadded con n pay scale which apparently mea aw her salary on her pay scale prior tending her services recited that ucation Officer, but contained a sup uld not be more than the maximum rover claims that having been pr fficer, she was entitled to the pay of a ere was no justification for denying ed by her was dismissed by the High d she is before us by way of specia nstitution. The counter-affidavit file Haryana offers no rational expla istrict Education Officer to Smt. P. act as District Education Officer. A fidavit was that there were no Class e was not entitled to be paid the fficer. We are unable to understand fidavit. She was promoted to the pos Class-I post, on an acting basis. O y Rule which provides that promo t entitle the officer promoted to the any rule justifying such refusal to gher post the salary of such higher as SDO (additional charge) for nearly e Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. P. SC 1060, while speaking through as under: s promoted as an acting District om July 19, 1976. The order of d condition that she would draw her meant that she would continue to prior to promotion. The initial order that she was an acting District a superadded condition that her pay imum of the principal's grade. Smt. n promoted as District Education of a District Education Officer and ing the same to her. A writ petition High Court of Punjab and Haryana ecial leave under Article 136 of the it filed on behalf of the Government xplanation for denying the pay of . P. Grover after she was promoted er. All that was said in the counter lass-I posts available and therefore the salary of District Education and the reason given in the counter e post of District Education Officer, is. Our attention was not invited to omotion on an acting basis would the pay of the post. In the absence l to pay to an officer promoted to a her post (the validity of such a rule nearly t. P. rough trict r of her e to rder trict pay Smt. tion and ition ana f the ent y of oted ter- fore tion ter- icer, d to ould ence to a rule PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.07 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7204- would entitled date sh retired allowe 9. Court in Selv while speak observation: “3. Court in Selv while speak observation: “3. It Secreta drawn was no (Scout promo affidav Admin scale Secreta this ar the int appella counte change on the pursua during in disp was in 6 -2023 ould be doubtful if it existed), we titled to be paid the salary of a Dist te she was promoted to the post, t tired from service on August 31, 19 lowed with costs."” Further, another Two Judge B Selva Raj v. Lt. Governor of Island speaking through Justice S.P. Ku ation:- . It is not in dispute that the appe cretary (Scouts) from the date of the awn against the post of secretary (S s not paid the said salary for the w couts). It is of course true that th omoted to the said post. It is also fidavit of Deputy Resident Commis ministration that the appellant wa ale of 1200-2040 and he was ask cretary (Scouts) as per the order af is arrangement not been done, he w e interior islands where the post o pellant was keen to stay in Port unter. However in our view, these a ange the real position. Fact remains the higher post though temporarily rsuant to the aforesaid order and ring that time against the post of S dispute that the salary attached to as in the pay scale of 1640-2900. Co we must hold that Smt. Grover is District Education Officer from the st, that is, July 19, 1976 until sh , 1980. The appeal is, accordingly, (emphasis added) dge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme land, Post Blair 1998 (4) SCC 291 .P. Kurdukar made the following appellant looked after the duties of f the order and his salary was to be ry (Scouts) under GFR. 77. Still he the work done by him as Secretary at the appellant was not regularly also true as stated in the counter missioner, Andaman and Nicobar t was regularly posted in the pay asked to look after the duties of er aforesaid. It is also true that had he would have to be transferred to ost of PST was available, but the Port Blair as averred in the said se averments in the counter will not ains that the appellant has worked rarily and in an officiating capacity and his salary was to be drawn of Secretary (Scouts). It is also not d to the post of Secretary (Scouts) 0. Consequently, on the principle of r is the she gly, dded) preme 291, owing s of o be ll he tary larly er obar pay s of had d to the said l not rked acity awn not uts) le of PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.07 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7204- quantu appella pay sc Secreta regula appella 10. rendered by a of Haryana, appointed to responsibility post then he grade. 11. petitioners ac aforemention additional ch benefit will b Court finds m contrary to th 12. Secretary-cu INSC 207, w under: 7 -2023 antum merit the respondents auth pellant as per the emoluments ava y scale during the time he actual cretary (Scouts) though in an offi gular promotee. This limited relief llant only on this ground.” Reliance in this regard may als ed by a Three-Judge Bench of this Cou ana, (2012) 1 RSJ 442, where in it w ted to officiate on a post involvin sibility of greater importance than tho en he would be entitled to the salary Admittedly, the respondents hav ners actually discharged the duties o entioned periods. The only defense ra nal charge contained a condition tha will be paid" and that the petitioner finds merit in the contention of the pet y to the settled legal position and cann A Three Judge Bench of the cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigar , while speaking through Justice authorities should have paid the s available in the aforesaid higher tually worked on the said post of officiating capacity and not as a elief is required to be given to the (emphasis added) ay also be placed on the judgement is Court in Subhash Chander v. State in it was held that, if an employee is nvolving assumption of duties and an those attaching to the substantive alary of his officiating post in higher nts have not disputed the fact that the uties of the higher posts during the ense raised is that the orders granting ion that "no additional allowance or itioners accepted this condition. This the petitioners that such a condition is cannot be sustained in law. of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in digarh v. Hari Om Sharma 1998 ustice S. Saghir Ahmad observed as the gher st of as a the dded) ement tate yee is s and antive higher at the g the anting ce or . This tion is urt in 998 ed as PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.07 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7204- 8. Lea the re Engine basis o right n argum the Go permit to cons law. T his per the on promo to be c a pers post or place h other a public 23 of t 13. (i) An officia entitled dischar 8 -2023 Learned counsel for the appellant a e respondent was promoted in sto gineer-I, he had given an undertak sis of stop-gap arrangement, he wo ht nor would he claim any benef gument, to say the least, is preposte e Government in its capacity as rmitted to raise such an argument, constitute an agreement between th The respondent being an employe s period of stagnation although, as e only person amongst the non omotion to the post of Junior Engin be considered for promotion in his o person is promoted to the higher p st or, as in the instant case, a stop ace him on the higher post, he wou her attendant benefits would be co blic policy. It would, therefore, be u f the Contract Act. In light of the above this court o (i) An employee who works on a high officiating basis, stop-gap arrangem entitled to the salary attached to that discharges its duties. ant attempted to contend that when stop-gap arrangement as Junior rtaking to the appellant that on the e would not claim promotion as of enefit pertaining to that post. The posterous. Apart from the fact that as a model employer cannot be ent, the undertaking which is said en the parties cannot be enforced at ployee of the appellant had to break , as we have found earlier, he was on-diploma holders available for ngineer-I and was, therefore, likely his own right. An agreement that if her post or put to officiate on that stop-gap arrangement is made to would not claim higher salary or e contrary to law and also against be unenforceable in view of Section (emphasis added) ourt observes that:- a higher post, whether on promotion, angement, or additional charge, is o that post for the period he actually hen nior the s of The that t be said d at reak was for ikely at if that e to y or inst tion dded) otion, ge, is tually PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.07 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7204- (ii) Th be com actuall (iii) Re specifi unjusti (iv) An shall n contrar Section (v) Th such u accepta 14. salary is not a work done b higher post, t entitled to the the salary of a contract of The principle recognized a Policy and appropriate c 15. incorporated accepted the 9 -2023 (ii) The principle of quantum meruit be compensated with the emoluments actually performed thereon. (iii) Refusal to pay the salary of the h specific statutory rule permitting s unjustified. (iv) Any condition or undertaking imp shall not claim the salary of the highe contrary to law, against public pol Section 23 of the Contract Act. (v) The State, as a model employer, such unconscionable conditions or tak acceptance thereof. It is a well-established principl is not a bounty or a gratuitous paymen one by an employee. When an emplo post, they necessarily perform work o to the corresponding remuneration. A ary of the higher post while extracting ract of service that is unconscionable inciple of "equal pay for equal work" ized as a goal to be achieved under th and has also been read into Artic riate cases. The respondents have placed st orated in the additional charge orders ed the same. However, it is trite law mandates that an employee must ments of the higher post for the work f the higher post, in the absence of a ting such denial, is arbitrary and g imposed upon an employee that he gher post while working thereon is ic policy, and unenforceable under oyer, cannot be permitted to enforce or take advantage of an employee's rinciple of service jurisprudence that ayment but is the consideration for the employee discharges the duties of a ork of a higher responsibility and are tion. Any condition that seeks to deny acting work of that post is nothing but onable and opposed to public policy. work" though not absolute, has been nder the Directive Principles of State Article 14 of the Constitution in ced strong reliance on the condition rders and the fact that the petitioners te law that there can be no estoppel must work e of a and hat he eon is under nforce oyee's e that or the s of a nd are deny ng but olicy. been State on in dition ioners toppel PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.07 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7204- against statut contrary to l otherwise ille that employe compulsion, their career circumstance 16. observed that had issued a Hon’ble Sup 628, that a c giving rise to objection reg 17. allowed. The (i) To the po periods (ii) To them th annum payme 10 -2023 t statute or against fundamental right y to law, the fact that the employee ise illegal condition. Moreover, it is a ployees in government service often lsion, as refusal may invite displeasu areer prospects. The acceptance of stances cannot be treated as a voluntar With regard to the objection per ed that the petitioners approached this ued a legal notice in the year 2023. le Supreme Court in M.R. Gupta v. at a claim relating to salary constitut rise to a recurring cause of action. In on regarding delay and laches cannot b In view of the discussion abov d. The respondents are directed as und (i) To grant the petitioners the salary the posts of SDO and Junior Enginee iods they worked on said posts on a (ii) To revise the salaries of the peti them the arrears so accruing, along wi annum from the date the amount bec payment. l rights. If the condition imposed is loyee accepted it cannot validate an it is a matter of common knowledge ften accept such conditions under spleasure of the superiors and affect ce of such a condition under these luntary waiver of their legal rights. on pertaining to delay and laches, it is ed this Court while still in service and 2023. It is trite law, as settled by the a v. Union of India (1995) 5 SCC nstitutes a continuing wrong, thereby ion. In view of the said principle, the nnot be sustained. n above, the present writ petition is as under: salary in the higher scale attached to ngineer, as the case may be, for the ts on additional charge basis. e petitioners accordingly and pay to ng with interest at the rate of 6% per nt became due till the date of actual sed is ate an ledge under affect these s, it is e and by the SCC ereby le, the ion is hed to or the ay to % per actual PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.07 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-7204- (iii) T period this ord 18. 19. February 26 P.C/Monika 11 -2023 (iii) The respondents shall comply w period of three months from the date o this order. Pending application(s), if any, al No order as to costs. 26, 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned. : Whether Reportable. : ply with these directions within a date of receipt of a certified copy of any, also stand disposed of. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No thin a py of RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.03.07 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document