Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan, Autonomous Body and Another vs Joginder Nath Sharma

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The petitioners have challenged the order dated 7.4.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, whereby the Tribunal has directed the petitioners to pay the pay allowances to the applicant attached to the post of District Youth Coordinator ( D.Y.C.), in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 w.e.f. 1.1.2006. The following are the admitted facts.

1) The applicant had actually worked in the post of D.Y.C. w.e.f. 19.10.2005.

2) He retired while working in the said post .

3) He had yet not been paid the scale attached to the post though he actually officiated in the post and performed the duties and responsibilities of that post to the satisfaction of the petitioners.

The only contention taken before the Tribunal was that the applicant had not been regularly promoted through the process of D.P.C. But, we find from the order itself that the petitioners had admitted the eligibility of the respondent for promotion w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and on that ground only, the direction was issued to pay the salary attached to the post. It will be profitable to extract paragraph 3 & 4 from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. To quote:

The facts are not in dispute. The applicant stands retired. Even if he were promoted retrospectively, he would be entitled to only financial benefits. Thus, we proceed to consider this case from another angle. Admittedly, applicant has worked on higher post of DYC w.e.f. 19.10.2005 but he has not been paid pay and allowances of the said post in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500. Law is well settled that if an employee is asked to perform duties and responsibilities of higher post he cannot be denied pay and allowances of such higher post. The respondents cannot be allowed to take work from the applicant of a higher post and make payment of pay and allowances of a lower post. It was held in Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Vs. Hari Om Sharma and Others, that if a person is put to officiate on a higher post with greater responsibilities, he is normally entitled to salary of that post.

Be that as it may be. Respondents have admitted the fact that applicant was eligible for promotion w.e.f. 01.01.2006 but DPC could not be held and now he stands retired, we are of the view that applicant is entitled to get the higher pay scale of promotional post of DYC at least from the date of his eligibility i.e. 1.1.2006.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the applicant cannot be granted the scale attached to the post since he had not been duly appointed through the process of DPC. As rightly held by the Tribunal, the applicant had officiated in the post. He had retired from service while officiating in the post of DYC. If that be so, having performed the duties and functions attached to a higher post, it is only appropriate that he is granted the pay scale attached to the post, particularly in the background of the admission that there is no dispute regarding the eligibility of the respondent to hold the post. That DPC was not held in time is not in dispute and there is no fault on the part of the applicant in that regard, since the applicant/respondent herein was otherwise admittedly eligible for promotion and since he actually officiated in the post, there is absolutely no error or illegality in the view taken by the Tribunal. Thus, we find no merit in the Writ Petition and it is accordingly dismissed.