2025:JHHC:12793 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1947 of 2025 -------- Hemant Kumar, aged about 63 years, son of Sri Saryu Prasad, resident of Village- Imadpur, PO: Bouri Beldari, PS & District- Jahanabad (Bihar) ... … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, PO & PS: Doranda, District- Ranchi 3. Accountant General, Jharkhand, Ranchi, PO: Hinoo, PS Doranda, District-Ranchi … … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar, SC (L&C)-II Mrs. Richa Sanchita, Advocate -------- Order No.06 /Dated: 28th April 2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs: “1. That by means of this application the petitioner prays for grant of an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus or an order or direction commanding upon the respondents to pay the difference of higher scale of pay between the post of Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer with effect from 15/7/2010 till 12/7/2011, between the post of Executive Engineer and Chief Engineer with effect from 13/7/2011 to 1/6/2014 and between the post of Chief Engineer and Engineer-in-Chief from 19/6/2018 till the date of superannuation i.e. 31/1/2020 for holding the said higher posts on the same scale of pay of Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer respectively with annual increments and also for fixation of retiral benefit accordingly with interest @ 10% per annum within a specified period and for any other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are that the Petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department on 14.07.1987 and in the service book his date of birth was recorded as 21.01.1960. By Notification dated 30.06.1997, the Petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer, Auranga Works Division, Tumbagarh. He was granted regular promotion on the said post with effect from 2025:JHHC:12793 2 01.02.1997. By notification dated 11.12.2002 issued by the Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna, the service of the Petitioner on the post of Assistant Engineer was confirmed. Thereafter, the Petitioner was transferred on the post of Executive Engineer in the office of the Divisional Commissioner, Gaya vide notification dated 01.08.1998. After bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar, the service of the petitioner on the said post was thereafter allocated to the State of Jharkhand. Thereafter, the Petitioner was transferred on the post of Superintending Engineer, Rural Development where he joined on 15.07.2010. Subsequently, the Petitioner was made in-charge Chief Engineer on 12.07.2011 in Minor Irrigation, Dumka. On 02.06.2014, the Petitioner was granted regular promotion on the post of Superintending Engineer. On 25.10.2014, the petitioner took over charge of the post of Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Deoghar. On 19.06.2018, the Petitioner was posted as Engineer-in-Chief-1 in Water Resources Department, Jharkhand. 3. Further facts reveal that the Petitioner is that by notification dated 25.09.2018 issued by the Water Resources Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi, the Petitioner was holding the substantive post of Superintending Engineer in the pay scale of Rs.1,23,100-2,15,900/- was granted regular promotion to the post of Chief Engineer in the pay-scale of Rs.1,23,100-2,16,600/- although he was entitled to such regular promotion to the post of Chief Engineer in the year 2014 itself. By notification dated 20.11.2018 issued by the Water Resources Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi, the Petitioner continued on the post of Engineer-in-Chief-1, Ranchi with independent current charge. The Petitioner continued on the post of Engineer-in-Chief- 1, Ranchi and he superannuated from the post of Engineer-in-Chief-1, Ranchi in-charge. 4. The case of the petitioner is that after retirement he received the retiral benefit on the basis of his regularly granted post of Chief Engineer and not on the basis of the post lastly held i.e. Engineer-in-Chief-1, Ranchi. 5. Mr. Sahani, Ld. Counsel submits that the case of this Petitioner is 2025:JHHC:12793 3 squarely covered by the judgment rendered in several decisions passed by this Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court and one of such is “Baneswar Ravidas” case whose writ application was allowed and the State challenged the same before the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 735 of 2019 titled “The State of Jharkhand & Anr. V. Baneshwar Rabidas” and the Division Bench after discussing several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the State. Accordingly, he submits that the instant writ application may be disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in LPA No. 735 of 2019. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents though opposed the prayer of the petitioner by relying upon the counter affidavit but fairly submits that if the case of the Petitioner is on same and similar footing, appropriate decision will be taken. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the Petitioner was asked to discharge his duty to the post of Superintending Engineer, Chief Engineer and Engineer-in-Chief for the respective periods and since he had performed his duty to the higher posts, he became entitled to the arrears of difference of salary with annual increments. Consequently, the retiral dues are also liable to be fixed and paid to the Petitioner accordingly. The claim of the Petitioner for difference of higher salary on account for holding higher posts of Superintending Engineer, Chief Engineer and Engineer-in-Chief is based upon the judgement of this Court affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As per him, non-payment of difference in salary for holding higher posts is violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India; accordingly, he is entitled for the pay and allowances of the higher post out of the hierarchy of posts of which he was directed by the State Government to discharge full duties and responsibilities and accordingly on his so doing for the periods under consideration herein as per the provisions of Rule 58(a) read with Rule 103(a) of the Jharkhand Service Code read with Notes 1 and 2 attached thereto; he is entitled for the claim as prayed for. 2025:JHHC:12793 4 8. The Jharkhand Service Code being a complete Code in itself, having a statutory flavor and character did envisage that a government servant in view of administrative exigencies could be conferred responsibilities of discharging functions, including all current functions, of two or more posts without being substantially promoted to the higher rank and/or post. The Code accordingly provided for entitlement of such an employee to additional pay and allowances, apart from those permissible in terms of his substantive appointment to the post which he holds. The scheme and mandate of the Code is flowing from Rules 58 and 103, 103(a) and 103 (b) of the Jharkhand Service Code. 9. It has been argued by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the issue involved in L.P.A No. 735 of 2019 is squarely applicable in the instant case also. For brevity paragraph no.13 of the said judgment is extracted below: “13. …We have considered the factual aspect involved in the given case wherein also the writ petitioner has been directed to perform his duty as Superintending Engineer (Current Charge) for the period from 26.07.2007 till 25.07.2011 and thereafter asked to perform his duty as Chief Engineer (Current Charge) for the period from 26.07.2011 till his superannuation on 30.04.2013, however with the condition that he will work in his earlier own pay scale and his promotion will depend upon the final decision to be taken for regular promotion and, therefore, according to our considered view, the factual aspect involved in State of Punjab and Another v. Dharam Pal (Supra) is almost similar to the instant case as also the provision of Rule which is the subject matter of the argument advanced on behalf of the parties is also pari materia, as has been referred hereinabove, therefore, the ground which has been agitated by the appellant-State for reversal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge that as because the writ petitioner has never been granted promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer, rather he was holding the post in the substantive capacity of Executive Engineer and as such, he is not entitled to get the pay scale of the post of Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer, is not acceptable to this Court taking into consideration the fact that the issue has already been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and Another v. Dharam Pal (Supra). Therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned Single Judge since has come to a conclusion holding the writ petitioner entitled to get the pay scale of the post of Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer as also for fixation of pension on the basis of the last pay drawn i.e., the pay scale attached to the post of Chief Engineer, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from no infirmity.” 10. Looking to the factual scenario, there is no two opinions that the issue involved in this case has been set at rest in the case of “State of Punjab and Another v. Dharam Pal” reported in (2017) 9 SCC 395 wherein the controversy involved was regarding disbursement of salary in course of discharging duty in the officiating capacity and the provisions of Rules 4.13 and 4.22 of Punjab Civil Services Rules have been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 2025:JHHC:12793 5 Further, from the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 735 of 2019 it is clear that it has considered several judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court and finally came to the conclusion that the Petitioner is entitled for all benefits with regard to pay scale on the respective post where he was on in-charge capacity; though, he was getting the pay scale of substantive post and accordingly the Petitioner is also entitled for differential of salary as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court and in the above referred case. 11. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. The 2nd Respondent is directed to pass a formal order with regard to payment of differential salary to the Petitioner and pay the same. In other words, the 2nd Respondent is directed to pay the difference of higher scale of pay between the post of Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer with effect from 15/7/2010 till 12/7/2011, between the post of Executive Engineer and Chief Engineer with effect from 13/7/2011 to 1/6/2014 and between the post of Chief Engineer and Engineer-in-Chief from 19/6/2018 till the date of superannuation i.e. 31/1/2020 for holding the said higher posts on the same scale of pay of Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer respectively with annual increments. The concerned Respondent is further directed to fix the retiral benefits accordingly. It goes without saying that since it is a case of senior citizen, the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 12. Pending I.A, if any, also stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Amit