Entitlement of Salary for Officiating Positions: State of Punjab vs B.K. Dhir

The case at hand involves the State of Punjab (Appellant) and B.K. Dhir (Respondent). The Respondent, Mr. B.K. Dhir, retired from his position as Additional Director, Panchayats, Punjab, on October 31, 1993. During his service tenure, he had held various officiating posts, including Deputy Director (Land Development) and Joint Director (RD) in Punjab, Chandigarh. He was conferred with the powers and functions of the Director, Panchayats under the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, on May 1, 1993. Subsequently, on June 23, 1993, the Respondent was officially assigned the responsibilities of Additional Director, Panchayats, and the powers of the Director, Panchayats, were conferred upon him on September 23, 1993.

However, despite holding these officiating posts and performing the duties associated with them, Mr. B.K. Dhir did not receive the salary corresponding to the officiating roles. His grievance was that the State of Punjab did not provide him the salary for the positions he held during the officiating period. This grievance led him to approach the High Court, seeking his rightful pay.

Initially, the High Court had dismissed the Writ Petition filed by Mr. Dhir, but later, in the intra-court appeal, the Division Bench ruled in favor of Mr. Dhir, allowing him to receive the salary equivalent to the regular incumbents working in the officiating positions.

The key legal issue revolved around whether an employee holding an officiating position should receive the salary due to the post they are holding, despite the conditions under which they were appointed. The Division Bench relied heavily on the case of Pritam Singh Dhaliwal v. State of Punjab, where it was concluded that employees performing duties for an officiating role are entitled to the same salary as regular incumbents.

The State of Punjab had argued that the conditions of the appointment of Mr. Dhir, as per the order, stipulated that he would continue to draw the salary of a Deputy Director and that no extra financial benefit would be provided for the officiating charge. However, the Bench found that this argument was not valid, as Mr. Dhir had carried out the duties of a higher post, and therefore, should be entitled to the salary that corresponded with the officiating posts.

During the hearing of this appeal, the learned counsel for the Appellant, Ms. Uttara Babbar, and Mr. R.K. Kapoor, representing the Respondent, emphasized the facts of the case and argued based on the legal precedents cited. The Bench analyzed the matter in light of similar cases, including Smt. P. Grover v. State of Haryana and others, and Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh v. Hari Om Sharma and others. The Court found that no provision in the Rules prohibited granting the benefits to Mr. Dhir. Thus, the appeal of the State of Punjab was dismissed.

In conclusion, the Division Bench of the High Court rightly granted the benefits to Mr. Dhir for the officiating positions he had worked in, and the Appellant’s appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The decision stands on the principle that when an employee performs the duties of a higher post, they are entitled to the salary and benefits corresponding to that role.

Judgment delivered by: Dipak Misra, Chief Justice of India, A.M. Khanwilkar, and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Judges of the Supreme Court of India.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: State of Punjab vs B.K. Dhir Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 05-09-2017.pdf