RSA-4245-201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA State of Haryana Through Collector Sirsa and ors. Partap Singh CORAM: HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. Mr. B.S. Mittal for the **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. 1. The present regular second appeal is decree dated 20 whereby the civil suit filed by the judgment and decree against the judgment and de District Judge, BRIEF FACTS 2. Brief facts of the case as per civil suit are that the appellant-department as Beldar in the year w.e.f 01.04.1993 Truck Cleaner. He was then promoted as Driver on 12.06.2009 the appellant-department for salary for the post of Driver ground that he was working as driver since 26.09.2000 18 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-4245 Date of Reserve Date of Pronouncement State of Haryana Through Collector Sirsa and ors. vs. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Mr. Ram Karan Sharma, DAG, Haryana Mr. B.S. Mittal, Advocate for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. The present regular second appeal is 20.07.2016 passed by learned C whereby the civil suit filed by the respondent decree dated 16.03.2018 whereby the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2016 Sirsa. FACTS Brief facts of the case as per civil suit are that department as Beldar in the year w.e.f 01.04.1993. Thereafter, vide order dated 26.09.2000, he was re Truck Cleaner. He was then promoted as Driver on 12.06.2009 department for salary for the post of Driver ground that he was working as driver since 26.09.2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 4245-2018 (O&M) Reserve:- 29.08.2025 Pronouncement:-15.09.2025 State of Haryana Through Collector Sirsa and ors. ......Appellants vs. …..Respondent SUDEEPTI SHARMA Ram Karan Sharma, DAG, Haryana The present regular second appeal is preferred against judgment and Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa respondent was decreed in his favour whereby the appeal filed by the appellant 20.07.2016, was dismissed by learned Brief facts of the case as per civil suit are that the respondent joined department as Beldar in the year 1987. He was regularized as such . Thereafter, vide order dated 26.09.2000, he was re-designated as Truck Cleaner. He was then promoted as Driver on 12.06.2009. He approached department for salary for the post of Driver since 26.09.2000 on the ground that he was working as driver since 26.09.2000. He served legal notice as 1 …..Respondent judgment and Sirsa decreed in his favour and llants learned respondent joined . He was regularized as such designated as . He approached on the . He served legal notice as GAURAV ARORA 2025.09.15 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4245-201 well upon the appellants but there was no reply to the same. Therefore, he filed civil suit, which was decreed in his favour, vide judgment and decree dated 20.07.2016 passed by learne filed appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.07. dismissed by District Judge, SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED 3. Learned counsel for the appellant not appreciate the evidence on record respondent and 4. Per contra, learned counsel Courts have rightly respondent in his favour. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with 6. The question involved in the present regular second appeal is as to whether the respondent would be entitled to salary for the post of Dr 26.09.2000 when undisputedly he was working as Driver or w.e.f when he was promoted as Driver. ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD 7. A perusal affidavit of the respondent wherein he stated that had been discharging the duties of Truck Driver since 26.09.2000. PW2 Sohan Lal record documents Ex PW2/A to Pahwa, SDE, whose sworn affidavit is Ex DW1/A wherein he repeated the entire assertions of his written statement wherein the claim asked by the respondent in civil suit was denied. However, he categorically admitted that the respondent was 18 (O&M) well upon the appellants but there was no reply to the same. Therefore, he filed civil suit, which was decreed in his favour, vide judgment and decree dated passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior filed appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.07. dismissed by District Judge, Sirsa. Hence, the present regular second appeal. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES Learned counsel for the appellant not appreciate the evidence on record while decreeing and dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent conten Courts have rightly appreciated the evidence and decreed the suit filed by the respondent in his favour. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance. The question involved in the present regular second appeal is as to whether the respondent would be entitled to salary for the post of Dr 26.09.2000 when undisputedly he was working as Driver or w.e.f when he was promoted as Driver. ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD A perusal of the record shows that affidavit of the respondent wherein he stated that had been discharging the duties of Truck Driver since 26.09.2000. PW2 Sohan Lal record documents Ex PW2/A to Ex. PW2/H. Thereafter, Pahwa, SDE, whose sworn affidavit is Ex DW1/A wherein he repeated the entire assertions of his written statement wherein the claim asked by the respondent in civil suit was denied. However, he categorically admitted that the respondent was well upon the appellants but there was no reply to the same. Therefore, he filed civil suit, which was decreed in his favour, vide judgment and decree dated unior Division), Sirsa and appellant filed appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2016, which was Hence, the present regular second appeal. COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES Learned counsel for the appellants contends that both the Courts decreeing the civil suit filed by the by the appellant. for the respondent contends that both the appreciated the evidence and decreed the suit filed by the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole The question involved in the present regular second appeal is as to whether the respondent would be entitled to salary for the post of Driver from 26.09.2000 when undisputedly he was working as Driver or w.e.f 12.06.2009 of the record shows that Ex. PW1/A is the duly sworn affidavit of the respondent wherein he stated that had been discharging the duties of Truck Driver since 26.09.2000. PW2 Sohan Lal, SDC Public Health proved on . Thereafter, appellants examined K L Pahwa, SDE, whose sworn affidavit is Ex DW1/A wherein he repeated the entire assertions of his written statement wherein the claim asked by the respondent in civil suit was denied. However, he categorically admitted that the respondent was 2 well upon the appellants but there was no reply to the same. Therefore, he filed civil suit, which was decreed in his favour, vide judgment and decree dated Sirsa and appellant 6, which was the Courts did the civil suit filed by the both the appreciated the evidence and decreed the suit filed by the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole The question involved in the present regular second appeal is as to iver from 12.06.2009 is the duly sworn affidavit of the respondent wherein he stated that had been discharging the duties SDC Public Health proved on K L Pahwa, SDE, whose sworn affidavit is Ex DW1/A wherein he repeated the entire assertions of his written statement wherein the claim asked by the respondent in civil suit was denied. However, he categorically admitted that the respondent was GAURAV ARORA 2025.09.15 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4245-201 working continuously as driver since 26.09.2000 as per record. He also proved on record Ex PW2/A to per which the respondent was working as Driver since 26.09.2000 8. Admittedly, the respondent was regul re-designated as Truck Cleaner. He was promot 12.06.2009. DW1 KL Pahwa, Sub Divisional Engineer Public Engineering Department, Sirsa in his cross examination specifically admitted the fact respondent had been working as Driver since 26.09.2000. The documents Ex PW2/A as well a fact that he had been working as Driver since 26.09.2000 are proved by appellant admitting those to be issued as per record of the department. admitted fact by the department and as per evidence on record that the respondent had been working/discharging the duties of Truck Driver since 26.09.2000 9. Learned Civil J judgments i.e 2001 (4) SCT 419, Balwant Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, 2011 (2) SCT 285 and Balbir Singh Dalal and others vs. State of Haryana and others the suit of the respondent learned counsel for the CONCLUSION 10. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in a case of Island, Post Blair, 1992 (2) SCT 286 the salary attached to higher post at the time when he actually worked on that post. The relevant por the duties of Secretary (Scouts) from the date of the order and 18 (O&M) ntinuously as driver since 26.09.2000 as per record. He also proved on record Ex PW2/A to Ex. PW2/H to be true as per record of the department and as per which the respondent was working as Driver since 26.09.2000 Admittedly, the respondent was regul designated as Truck Cleaner. He was promot 12.06.2009. DW1 KL Pahwa, Sub Divisional Engineer Public Engineering Department, Sirsa in his cross examination specifically admitted the fact respondent had been working as Driver since 26.09.2000. The documents Ex PW2/A as well as Ex. PW2/B relied upon by the respondent in order to prove the fact that he had been working as Driver since 26.09.2000 are proved by appellant those to be issued as per record of the department. admitted fact by the department and as per evidence on record that the respondent had been working/discharging the duties of Truck Driver since 26.09.2000 earned Civil Judge (Junior Division judgments i.e Dwarka Prasad Tiwari vs. M.P. Road Transport Corporation, 2001 (4) SCT 419, Balwant Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, 2011 (2) SCT and Balbir Singh Dalal and others vs. State of Haryana and others the suit of the respondent in his favour. Same judgments are relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent here in the present regular second appeal CONCLUSION Hon’ble the Supreme Court in a case of Island, Post Blair, 1992 (2) SCT 286 has held that the appellant is entitled to draw the salary attached to higher post at the time when he actually worked on that post. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under: “3. It is not in dispute that the appellant looked after the duties of Secretary (Scouts) from the date of the order and ntinuously as driver since 26.09.2000 as per record. He also proved on to be true as per record of the department and as per which the respondent was working as Driver since 26.09.2000. Admittedly, the respondent was regularized w.e.f 01.04.1993 and was designated as Truck Cleaner. He was promoted to the post of Vehicle Driver on 12.06.2009. DW1 KL Pahwa, Sub Divisional Engineer Public Engineering Department, Sirsa in his cross examination specifically admitted the fact that the respondent had been working as Driver since 26.09.2000. The documents Ex PW2/B relied upon by the respondent in order to prove the fact that he had been working as Driver since 26.09.2000 are proved by appellant those to be issued as per record of the department. Therefore, it is admitted fact by the department and as per evidence on record that the respondent had been working/discharging the duties of Truck Driver since 26.09.2000. ivision), Sirsa while relying upon Dwarka Prasad Tiwari vs. M.P. Road Transport Corporation, 2001 (4) SCT 419, Balwant Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, 2011 (2) SCT and Balbir Singh Dalal and others vs. State of Haryana and others, decreed in his favour. Same judgments are relied upon by here in the present regular second appeal. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in a case of Selva Raj vs. Lt. Governor of held that the appellant is entitled to draw the salary attached to higher post at the time when he actually worked on that post. tion of the judgment is reproduced as under:- 3. It is not in dispute that the appellant looked after the duties of Secretary (Scouts) from the date of the order and 3 ntinuously as driver since 26.09.2000 as per record. He also proved on to be true as per record of the department and as and was to the post of Vehicle Driver on 12.06.2009. DW1 KL Pahwa, Sub Divisional Engineer Public Engineering that the respondent had been working as Driver since 26.09.2000. The documents Ex PW2/B relied upon by the respondent in order to prove the fact that he had been working as Driver since 26.09.2000 are proved by appellant Therefore, it is admitted fact by the department and as per evidence on record that the respondent while relying upon Dwarka Prasad Tiwari vs. M.P. Road Transport Corporation, 2001 (4) SCT 419, Balwant Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, 2011 (2) SCT , decreed in his favour. Same judgments are relied upon by Selva Raj vs. Lt. Governor of held that the appellant is entitled to draw the salary attached to higher post at the time when he actually worked on that post. GAURAV ARORA 2025.09.15 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4245-201 his salary was to be drawn against the post of Secretary (Scouts) under GFR 77. Still he was not paid the said salary for the work done by him as Secretary (Scouts). It is of course true that the appellant was not regularly promoted to the said post. It is also true as stated in the counter Commissioner, Andaman & Nicobar Administration that the appellant was regularly posted in the pay scale of Rs 1200 and he was asked to look after the duties of Secretary (Scouts) as per arrangement not been done, he would have to be transferred to the interior islands where the post of PST was available, but the appellant was keen to stay in Port Blair as averred in the said counter. Howe will not change the real position. Fact remains that the appellant has worked on the higher post though temporarily and in an officiating capacity pursuant to the aforesaid order and his salary was to be dra of Secretary (Scouts). It is also not in dispute that the salary attached to the post of Secretary (Scouts) was in the pay scale of 1640 the respondents authorities per the emoluments available in the aforesaid higher pay scale during the time he actually worked on the said post of Secretary (Scouts) though in an officiating capacity and not as a regular promotee. This limited relief appellant only on this ground. 18 (O&M) his salary was to be drawn against the post of Secretary (Scouts) under GFR 77. Still he was not paid the said salary for the work done by him as Secretary (Scouts). It is of course true that the appellant was not regularly promoted to the said post. It also true as stated in the counter-affidavit of Deputy Resident Commissioner, Andaman & Nicobar Administration that the appellant was regularly posted in the pay scale of Rs 1200 and he was asked to look after the duties of Secretary (Scouts) as per the order aforesaid. It is also true that had this arrangement not been done, he would have to be transferred to the interior islands where the post of PST was available, but the appellant was keen to stay in Port Blair as averred in the said counter. However, in our view, these averments in the counter will not change the real position. Fact remains that the appellant has worked on the higher post though temporarily and in an officiating capacity pursuant to the aforesaid order and his salary was to be drawn during that time against the post of Secretary (Scouts). It is also not in dispute that the salary attached to the post of Secretary (Scouts) was in the pay scale of 1640-2900. Consequently, on the principle of quantum meruit the respondents authorities should have paid the appellant as per the emoluments available in the aforesaid higher pay scale during the time he actually worked on the said post of Secretary (Scouts) though in an officiating capacity and not as a regular promotee. This limited relief is required to be given to the appellant only on this ground. his salary was to be drawn against the post of Secretary (Scouts) under GFR 77. Still he was not paid the said salary for the work done by him as Secretary (Scouts). It is of course true that the appellant was not regularly promoted to the said post. It affidavit of Deputy Resident Commissioner, Andaman & Nicobar Administration that the appellant was regularly posted in the pay scale of Rs 1200-2040 and he was asked to look after the duties of Secretary (Scouts) the order aforesaid. It is also true that had this arrangement not been done, he would have to be transferred to the interior islands where the post of PST was available, but the appellant was keen to stay in Port Blair as averred in the said ver, in our view, these averments in the counter will not change the real position. Fact remains that the appellant has worked on the higher post though temporarily and in an officiating capacity pursuant to the aforesaid order wn during that time against the post of Secretary (Scouts). It is also not in dispute that the salary attached to the post of Secretary (Scouts) was in the pay scale of 2900. Consequently, on the principle of quantum meruit should have paid the appellant as per the emoluments available in the aforesaid higher pay scale during the time he actually worked on the said post of Secretary (Scouts) though in an officiating capacity and not as a regular is required to be given to the 4 GAURAV ARORA 2025.09.15 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4245-201 4. The decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting iliac claim of the appellant to the aforesaid limited extent is therefore required to be set aside. The appeals are allowed to the limited extent that the respondents will be called upon to make available to the appellant the difference of salary in the time scale of 1640 19-9 1995 during which time the appellant actually worked. It is made of salary shall not be treated to amount to any promotion given to the appellant on the said post. It is only on the ground that he had actually worked, as such this relief is being given to him. The difference of salary as aforesaid shall be paid over to the appellant within eight weeks from today. No costs. 11. The question involved in the present regular second appeal is no more res integra, therefore, the answer to the same is that the respondent would be entitled to salary for the post of working as Driver and not from 12.06.2009 Driver. 12. In view of the Raj’s case (supra) 20.07.2016 passed by learne judgment and decree the same are upheld 13. Accordingly 14. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. 18 (O&M) 4. The decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting iliac claim of the appellant to the aforesaid limited extent is therefore required to be set aside. The appeals are allowed to the limited extent that the respondents will be called upon to make available to the appellant the difference of salary in the time scale of 1640-2900 during the period from 29 9 1995 during which time the appellant actually worked. It is made clear that the payment of the aforesaid difference amount of salary shall not be treated to amount to any promotion given to the appellant on the said post. It is only on the ground that he had actually worked, as such this relief is being given to him. he difference of salary as aforesaid shall be paid over to the appellant within eight weeks from today. No costs. The question involved in the present regular second appeal is no more , therefore, the answer to the same is that the respondent would be entitled to salary for the post of driver since 26.09.2000 from the date he was working as Driver and not from 12.06.2009 when he was actually promoted as In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Raj’s case (supra), I do not find any infirmity in passed by learned Civil Judge (J decree dated 16.03.2018 passed upheld. Accordingly, the present regular second appeal is Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared 4. The decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting iliac claim of the appellant to the aforesaid limited extent is therefore required to be set aside. The appeals are allowed to the limited extent that the respondents will be called upon to make available to the appellant the difference of salary in the 2900 during the period from 29-1-1992 to 9 1995 during which time the appellant actually worked. It is clear that the payment of the aforesaid difference amount of salary shall not be treated to amount to any promotion given to the appellant on the said post. It is only on the ground that he had actually worked, as such this relief is being given to him. he difference of salary as aforesaid shall be paid over to the appellant within eight weeks from today. No costs. The question involved in the present regular second appeal is no more , therefore, the answer to the same is that the respondent would be river since 26.09.2000 from the date he was when he was actually promoted as law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Selva , I do not find any infirmity in the judgment and decree dated (Junior Division), Sirsa as well as by learned District Judge, Sirsa the present regular second appeal is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared 5 The question involved in the present regular second appeal is no more , therefore, the answer to the same is that the respondent would be river since 26.09.2000 from the date he was when he was actually promoted as Selva ree dated as well as and Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared GAURAV ARORA 2025.09.15 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4245-201 15. Pending application (s) if any also 15.09.2025 Gaurav Arora 18 (O&M) Pending application (s) if any also (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Pending application (s) if any also stands disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes : Yes 6 GAURAV ARORA 2025.09.15 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document