High Court Orders State to Pay Lecturer's Salary for Temporary Position
Chandigarh, August 7, 2024: In a landmark decision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the State of Punjab to pay the petitioner, Pawan Kumar, the salary for the position of Lecturer for the period he served in that capacity. The ruling, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi, affirms the principle that employees are entitled to the salary of the post they discharge duties for, irrespective of workload considerations.
Case Background:
Pawan Kumar, the petitioner, had been performing duties as a Lecturer but was denied the corresponding salary on the grounds that the workload was less. The impugned order dated February 14, 2020, rejecting his claim, was challenged in court. The petitioner, represented by Advocate Mr. Sunny Singla, argued that the decision was arbitrary and contrary to established legal principles.
Get latest updates join WhatsApp Channel
Court's Findings:
Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi cited the Full Bench decision in CWP No. 21358 of 2008, Subhash Chander Vs. State of Haryana, which established that an employee performing duties of a higher post is entitled to the salary of that post. The court also referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Vs. Hari Om Sharma (1998), which emphasized that denying the salary for duties performed at a higher post is against public interest.
State's Defense:
The State, represented by Deputy Advocate General Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, defended the impugned order by referencing the Supreme Court judgment in State of Haryana Vs. R.K. Aggarwal (1997), which was argued to support the decision to deny the salary. However, the court found this argument unconvincing and noted that the Full Bench had already considered and distinguished this case in their earlier judgment.
Court's Decision:
The court ruled in favor of Pawan Kumar, directing the State to grant him the salary for the Lecturer position for the period he discharged its duties. The judgment mandates compliance within eight weeks from the receipt of the certified order.
This decision reinforces the rights of employees to be fairly compensated for the duties they perform, setting a significant precedent for similar cases in the future.
