CWP-21599-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 118 SANT KUMAR CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. Sunil Kumar Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA The petition has been filed, quashing the order dated claim for grant of pay scale 20.08.2020 to 31.07.202 Department as Clerk aforementioned post during that period 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to an office order dated 20.08.2020 complete work relating to the staff and Lab Assistants. He also referred t 25.09.2023, Annexure P related to RTI in the office. By relying that he actually worked as Assistant scale meant for the post 2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Decided On: SANT KUMAR Versus CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Sunil Kumar Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J.(Oral) The petition has been filed, inter alia quashing the order dated 26.06.2025, Annexure P for grant of pay scale of Assistant, instead of Clerk 20.08.2020 to 31.07.2024 has been rejected. The petitioner has worked in the as Clerk, and has claimed the pay scale of Assistant for the period aforementioned as he was statedly assigned during that period. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to an office order 20.08.2020, Annexure P-1, whereby the petitioner was work relating to the establishment of staff and Lab Assistants. He also referred t , Annexure P-4, whereby the petitioner related to RTI in the office. By relying upon these office orders, it is claimed actually worked as Assistant and, accordingly, scale meant for the post also. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-21599-2025 Decided On: 20.08.2025 ....PETITIONER(s) CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA AND ....RESPONDENT(s) . JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Sunil Kumar Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, inter alia, seeking a writ of certiorari , Annexure P-9, whereby the petitioner’s instead of Clerk, with effect from has been rejected. The petitioner has worked in the the pay scale of Assistant for the period the current duty charge for the Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to an office order , whereby the petitioner was allocated the establishment of Class IV employees, Clerical staff and Lab Assistants. He also referred to another office order dated the petitioner was allocated all work these office orders, it is claimed accordingly, becomes entitled to pay HARYANA AND Ms. Tanushree Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, certiorari petitioner’s from has been rejected. The petitioner has worked in the the pay scale of Assistant for the period the current duty charge for the Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to an office order the Class IV employees, Clerical o another office order dated all work these office orders, it is claimed becomes entitled to pay Aman Dua 2025.08.26 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-21599-2025 3. Learned State counsel, on the contrary, contends that there is no order assigning current duty charge to the petitioner The orders being referred higher officers Procedure Part prescribes that asked to do any other work assigned by Section Incharge. She also contends that the petitioner’s representation claiming the scale of Assistant, has been duly considered and rejected vide impugn recording as under passed an order whereby the work was distributed within the staff of District Education Office Panipat, Sh. Sant Kumar, Clerk was allotted the wo employees, clerical staff and Lab Assistants. Office was distributed. Accordingly on dated 10.03.2022 and 25.09.2023, the work was re Education Officer i.e. District Education Officer Panipat for smooth functioning of the office. petitioner is claiming that he was given the Current Duty Charge on the post of Ass whereas as per the record, the current duty charge on the post of Assistant was never assigned to the petitioner by competent authority. He was only allotted the work related to specific subject after his joinin Panipat on 17.08.2020 in compliance of Online Transfer Policy, 2020. Further, the work distribution was reorganized from time to time by the District Education Officer, Panipat within the staf the office. Accordingly, the work allotted to Sh. Sant Kumar was 2025 -2- Learned State counsel, on the contrary, contends that there is no order assigning current duty charge to the petitioner The orders being referred to only show allocation of specific work officers, which is as per the Government of Procedure Part-I, which lists clerical duties to be assigned. prescribes that a Clerk can be assigned duties of a specific subject or any other work assigned by Section Incharge. She also contends that the petitioner’s representation claiming the scale of Assistant, has been duly considered and rejected vide impugned order dated recording as under: That on 20.08.2020, the District Education Officer, Panipat passed an order whereby the work was distributed within the staff of District Education Office Panipat, Sh. Sant Kumar, Clerk was allotted the work related to the establishment of class employees, clerical staff and Lab Assistants. That periodically the work in office of District Education Office was distributed. Accordingly on dated 10.03.2022 and 25.09.2023, the work was re-distributed by the Education Officer i.e. District Education Officer Panipat for smooth functioning of the office. Further, it is also pertinent to mention here that as the petitioner is claiming that he was given the Current Duty Charge on the post of Assistant at District Education Office, Panipat whereas as per the record, the current duty charge on the post of Assistant was never assigned to the petitioner by competent authority. He was only allotted the work related to specific subject after his joining in the office of District Education Office, Panipat on 17.08.2020 in compliance of Online Transfer Policy, 2020. Further, the work distribution was reorganized from time to time by the District Education Officer, Panipat within the staff of the office for smooth functioning of the office. Accordingly, the work allotted to Sh. Sant Kumar was Learned State counsel, on the contrary, contends that there is no order assigning current duty charge to the petitioner of the post of Assistant. allocation of specific work by the Government of Haryana Manual of Office lerical duties to be assigned. Para 3.14 thereof Clerk can be assigned duties of a specific subject or may be any other work assigned by Section Incharge. She also contends that the petitioner’s representation claiming the scale of Assistant, has been ed order dated 26.06.2025, by That on 20.08.2020, the District Education Officer, Panipat passed an order whereby the work was distributed within the staff of District Education Office Panipat, Sh. Sant Kumar, Clerk was rk related to the establishment of class-IV employees, clerical staff and Lab Assistants. That periodically the work in office of District Education Office was distributed. Accordingly on dated 10.03.2022 and distributed by the concerned District Education Officer i.e. District Education Officer Panipat for Further, it is also pertinent to mention here that as the petitioner is claiming that he was given the Current Duty Charge istant at District Education Office, Panipat whereas as per the record, the current duty charge on the post of Assistant was never assigned to the petitioner by competent authority. He was only allotted the work related to specific g in the office of District Education Office, Panipat on 17.08.2020 in compliance of Online Ministerial Staff Transfer Policy, 2020. Further, the work distribution was reorganized from time to time by the District Education Officer, f of the office for smooth functioning of the office. Accordingly, the work allotted to Sh. Sant Kumar was Learned State counsel, on the contrary, contends that there is no the post of Assistant. by the Haryana Manual of Office thereof may be any other work assigned by Section Incharge. She also contends that the petitioner’s representation claiming the scale of Assistant, has been , by That on 20.08.2020, the District Education Officer, Panipat passed an order whereby the work was distributed within the staff of District Education Office Panipat, Sh. Sant Kumar, Clerk was IV That periodically the work in office of District Education Office was distributed. Accordingly on dated 10.03.2022 and concerned District Education Officer i.e. District Education Officer Panipat for Further, it is also pertinent to mention here that as the petitioner is claiming that he was given the Current Duty Charge istant at District Education Office, Panipat whereas as per the record, the current duty charge on the post of Assistant was never assigned to the petitioner by competent authority. He was only allotted the work related to specific g in the office of District Education Office, Staff Transfer Policy, 2020. Further, the work distribution was reorganized from time to time by the District Education Officer, f of the office for smooth functioning of the office. Accordingly, the work allotted to Sh. Sant Kumar was Aman Dua 2025.08.26 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-21599-2025 also reorganized periodically till the date of his retirement i 31.07.2024 after attaining the age of super 4. Heard. 5. It remains officer or authority petitioner during the petitioner discharge of his duties so as to entitle him to 6. In view thereof, there is no ground to entert stands dismissed 20.08.2025 Ad Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? 2025 -3- also reorganized periodically till the date of his retirement i 31.07.2024 after attaining the age of super Heard. It remains undisputed that there is no specific order by any authority assigning the current duty charge as Assistant to the during service. The office orders relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner only show allocation of specific work to the petitioner discharge of his duties as Clerk, which cannot be termed so as to entitle him to pay scale meant for the post In view thereof, there is no ground to entert stands dismissed in limine. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? also reorganized periodically till the date of his retirement i.e. 31.07.2024 after attaining the age of superannuation. there is no specific order by any assigning the current duty charge as Assistant to the The office orders relied upon by learned counsel for only show allocation of specific work to the petitioner in as Clerk, which cannot be termed ‘current duty charge’ for the post of Assistant. In view thereof, there is no ground to entertain the petition and it TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No e. there is no specific order by any assigning the current duty charge as Assistant to the The office orders relied upon by learned counsel for in ’ ain the petition and it Aman Dua 2025.08.26 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document