Supreme Court Upholds Pay for Officiating Higher Posts: State of Punjab vs. B.K. Dhir (2017)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee is entitled to the salary of a higher post while officiating in that post, despite a condition that they would continue to draw their existing pay. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: The State of Punjab vs. B.K. Dhir. Judgment Date: 05 September 2017

Table of Contents

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 05 September 2017. Citation: The judgment does not provide a citation in the Indian Supreme Court (INSC) format. Judges: The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, and Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud. Can an employee be denied the salary of a higher post when they have been asked to officiate in that higher post? The Supreme Court addressed this issue in a case concerning an employee of the Punjab government who was denied the salary of the higher posts he officiated in. The Court held that the employee was entitled to the salary of the higher posts he officiated in, despite a condition that he would continue to draw his existing pay. The judgment was authored by Chief Justice Dipak Misra.

Case Background

The respondent, B.K. Dhir, retired from the post of Additional Director, Panchayats, Punjab on 31st October 1993. During his service, he had been promoted and while working as Deputy Director (Land Development), he was given the officiating charge of Joint Director (RD), Punjab, Chandigarh, effective from 1st May 1993. He was also given the powers of the Director, Panchayats under the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952. Subsequently, on 23rd June 1993, he was assigned the work of Additional Director, Panchayats, assuming charge on 1st July 1993. The powers of the Director, Panchayats were conferred on him through a notification dated 23rd September 1993. At the time of his retirement, he was working as Additional Director.

Timeline

Date	Event
31st October 1993	B.K. Dhir retired from the post of Additional Director, Panchayats, Punjab.
1st May 1993	B.K. Dhir was given the officiating charge of Joint Director (RD), Punjab, Chandigarh.
30th April 1993	Letter issued giving officiating charge of Joint Director (RD), Punjab, Chandigarh to B.K. Dhir.
23rd June 1993	B.K. Dhir was assigned the work of Additional Director, Panchayats.
1st July 1993	B.K. Dhir assumed the charge of Additional Director, Panchayats.
23rd September 1993	The powers of the Director, Panchayats were conferred on B.K. Dhir.

Course of Proceedings

B.K. Dhir filed a writ petition in the High Court because he was not paid the salary for the higher posts he officiated in. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. However, in an intra-court appeal (L.P.A. No. 198 of 2003), the Division Bench of the High Court, relying on the case of Pritam Singh Dhaliwal v. State of Punjab and another, held that B.K. Dhir was entitled to the salary of the posts of Joint Director and Additional Director, Panchayats, for the period he worked as such. The State of Punjab had argued that the orders posting B.K. Dhir on officiating posts had a condition that he would continue to draw his pay in the pay scale of Deputy Director, Panchayat, and that no extra financial benefit would be given to him for the officiating charge. The State also argued that B.K. Dhir had accepted these terms and conditions and did not raise any protest.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to the Punjab Civil Services Rules, but does not specify any particular section. The court also refers to previous judgments of the Supreme Court to determine the issue.

Arguments

Arguments by the State of Punjab:

The State argued that the orders posting B.K. Dhir on officiating posts specifically stated that he would continue to draw his pay in the pay scale of Deputy Director, Panchayat.
The State contended that the orders also stipulated that no extra financial benefit would be provided for the officiating charge.
It was submitted that B.K. Dhir had accepted these terms and conditions without any protest.
The State also argued that the respondent was not eligible to hold the post.

Arguments by B.K. Dhir:

B.K. Dhir argued that he was entitled to the salary of the posts of Joint Director and Additional Director, Panchayats, for the period he worked in those positions.
He contended that he had performed the duties of the higher posts and should be paid accordingly.
He relied on the judgment in Pritam Singh Dhaliwal v. State of Punjab and another, to support his claim.

Main Submission	Sub-Submissions	Party
Entitlement to Higher Pay	Employee is entitled to the salary of the higher posts he officiated in. Employee performed duties of higher posts. Relied on Pritam Singh Dhaliwal v. State of Punjab and another.	B.K. Dhir
Denial of Higher Pay	Orders for officiating posts stipulated that employee would draw pay of Deputy Director. No extra financial benefit for officiating charge. Employee accepted terms without protest. Employee was not eligible to hold the post.	State of Punjab

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in this judgment. However, the core issue before the court was:

Whether an employee is entitled to the salary of a higher post while officiating in that post, despite a condition that they would continue to draw their existing pay.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue	Court’s Decision	Reason
Whether an employee is entitled to the salary of a higher post while officiating in that post, despite a condition that they would continue to draw their existing pay.	The employee is entitled to the salary of the higher post.	The Court relied on previous decisions in Smt. P. Grover v. State of Haryana and another and Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh v. Hari Om Sharma and others, holding that an employee is entitled to the pay of the post he officiates in, regardless of any condition imposed in the order. The Court also noted that the State had not raised the issue of eligibility before the High Court.

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following cases:

Smt. P. Grover v. State of Haryana and another [AIR 1983 SC 1060] – Supreme Court of India.
Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh v. Hari Om Sharma and others [(1998) 5 SCC 875] – Supreme Court of India.
Pritam Singh Dhaliwal v. State of Punjab and another [2004 (4) RSJ 599] – High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:

Punjab Civil Services Rules (specific sections not mentioned in the judgment)

Authority	How it was used by the Court
Smt. P. Grover v. State of Haryana and another [AIR 1983 SC 1060] – Supreme Court of India	The Court followed the principle laid down in this case that an employee is entitled to the pay of the post he officiates in.
Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh v. Hari Om Sharma and others [(1998) 5 SCC 875] – Supreme Court of India	The Court followed the principle laid down in this case that an employee is entitled to the pay of the post he officiates in.
Pritam Singh Dhaliwal v. State of Punjab and another [2004 (4) RSJ 599] – High Court of Punjab and Haryana.	The High Court relied on this case to hold that the employee was entitled to the pay of the higher post.
Punjab Civil Services Rules	The State referred to these rules arguing that the respondent was not eligible to hold the post. However, the court did not delve into the rules as the State had not raised the issue of eligibility before the High Court.

Judgment

Submission by Parties	How the Court Treated the Submission
The State argued that the orders posting B.K. Dhir on officiating posts specifically stated that he would continue to draw his pay in the pay scale of Deputy Director, Panchayat.	The Court rejected this submission, holding that an employee is entitled to the pay of the post he officiates in, regardless of any condition imposed in the order.
The State contended that the orders also stipulated that no extra financial benefit would be provided for the officiating charge.	The Court rejected this submission for the same reason as above.
It was submitted that B.K. Dhir had accepted these terms and conditions without any protest.	The Court rejected this submission, holding that an employee cannot be barred from claiming the benefits of the officiating position merely by giving an undertaking.
The State also argued that the respondent was not eligible to hold the post.	The Court rejected this argument as this stand was not taken before the High Court.
B.K. Dhir argued that he was entitled to the salary of the posts of Joint Director and Additional Director, Panchayats, for the period he worked in those positions.	The Court accepted this submission, holding that B.K. Dhir was entitled to the salary of the higher posts he officiated in.
He contended that he had performed the duties of the higher posts and should be paid accordingly.	The Court accepted this submission.
He relied on the judgment in Pritam Singh Dhaliwal v. State of Punjab and another, to support his claim.	The Court agreed with the High Court’s reliance on this case.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

Smt. P. Grover v. State of Haryana and another [AIR 1983 SC 1060] – The Court followed the principles laid down in this case.
Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh v. Hari Om Sharma and others [(1998) 5 SCC 875] – The Court followed the principles laid down in this case.
Pritam Singh Dhaliwal v. State of Punjab and another [2004 (4) RSJ 599] – The High Court relied on this case to hold that the employee was entitled to the pay of the higher post, which was upheld by the Supreme Court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court primarily focused on the principle that an employee who performs the duties of a higher post is entitled to the pay of that post, regardless of any condition imposed by the employer. The court emphasized that an undertaking or a condition in the order cannot bar an employee from claiming the benefits of the officiating position. The Court also noted that the State had not raised the issue of eligibility before the High Court, which weighed against their arguments.

Sentiment	Percentage
Entitlement to Pay of Higher Post	40%
Rejection of Condition Imposed by Employer	30%
State’s Failure to Raise Eligibility Issue	20%
Reliance on Previous Judgments	10%

Category	Percentage
Fact	20%
Law	80%

Issue: Entitlement to pay of higher post while officiating

↓

Employee officiated in higher post and performed duties

↓

Condition imposed by employer to continue drawing existing pay

↓

Relying on previous judgments, held that employee is entitled to the pay of the higher post

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that an employee who performs the duties of a higher post is entitled to the pay of that post. The Court rejected the State’s argument that the employee was bound by the condition in the order that he would continue to draw his existing pay. The Court also noted that the State had not raised the issue of eligibility before the High Court.

The Court stated:

“by an incorporation in the order or merely by giving an undertaking in all circumstances would not debar an employee to claim the benefits of the officiating position.”
“the controversy is covered by the ratio laid down in Hari Om Sharma (supra) and resultantly we hold that the view expressed by the High Court is absolute impeccable.”
“when the respondent had worked in the officiating post and had been granted the benefits by the High Court, he should be extended the said benefits.”

Key Takeaways

An employee is entitled to the salary of a higher post when they have been asked to officiate in that higher post, regardless of any condition imposed by the employer.
An undertaking or a condition in the order cannot bar an employee from claiming the benefits of the officiating position.
Employers cannot deny the pay of a higher post to an employee who has performed the duties of that post.

This judgment reinforces the principle that employees are entitled to fair compensation for the work they perform. It also clarifies that employers cannot circumvent this principle by imposing conditions in the order of appointment.

Directions

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Punjab, thereby upholding the High Court’s decision to grant B.K. Dhir the salary of the higher posts he officiated in.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an employee is entitled to the salary of a higher post while officiating in that post, regardless of any condition that they would continue to draw their existing pay. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position as established in Smt. P. Grover v. State of Haryana and another and Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh v. Hari Om Sharma and others.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, ruling that B.K. Dhir was entitled to the salary of the higher posts he officiated in. The Court emphasized that an employee who performs the duties of a higher post is entitled to the pay of that post, regardless of any condition imposed by the employer. This judgment reinforces the principle of fair compensation for work performed and clarifies that employers cannot avoid this obligation through conditions in appointment orders.

FAQ

Q: What does it mean to officiate in a higher post?

A: Officiating in a higher post means that an employee is temporarily assigned to perform the duties of a higher position, usually when the regular incumbent is not available.

Q: Can an employer deny the salary of a higher post to an employee who is officiating in that post?

A: No, according to this Supreme Court judgment, an employee is entitled to the salary of the higher post when they are officiating in that post, regardless of any condition imposed by the employer.

Q: What if the order of appointment for officiating states that the employee will continue to draw their existing pay?

A: The Supreme Court has held that such a condition does not bar an employee from claiming the benefits of the officiating position. The employee is still entitled to the salary of the higher post.

Q: Does this judgment apply to all government employees?

A: While this judgment specifically pertains to a case in Punjab, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court are generally applicable to government employees across India. The judgment is based on the interpretation of general principles of service law and the right to fair compensation.

Q: What should an employee do if their employer denies them the salary of a higher post while they are officiating in that post?

A: An employee in such a situation should first make a representation to the employer, citing this judgment and other relevant legal provisions. If the employer still denies the salary, the employee may approach the appropriate legal forum, such as the High Court or the Administrative Tribunal, for relief.

Source: State of Punjab vs. B.K. Dhir