Holding

In the absence of any rule justifying refusal, an officer promoted on an acting basis is entitled to the salary of the higher post from the date of promotion.

Summary

Smt. P. Grover, an award‑winning teacher, was extended in service and promoted to acting District Education Officer effective 19 July 1976, but the promotion order contained a super‑added condition that she would continue to draw her previous salary scale. She filed a writ petition seeking the salary of a District Education Officer, which was dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. On special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court examined whether an officer promoted on an acting basis is entitled to the pay of the higher post in the absence of any rule to the contrary. The Court found the Government of Haryana’s counter‑affidavit offered no rational justification for denying the higher salary and held that, lacking any rule, the officer is entitled to the salary of the post to which she was promoted. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed with costs, directing that Ms. Grover be paid the District Education Officer salary from the date of promotion until her retirement.

Issues considered

Whether an officer promoted to a higher post on an acting basis is entitled to the salary scale of that post in the absence of a specific rule denying such entitlement.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 136

Subjects

promotionacting postsalary scaleservice extensionclass‑I postpay entitlementadministrative lawwrit petition

Judgment

'654

SMT. P. GROVER
A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

August 18, 1983
n
(0. CH!NNAPPA REDDY AND E. S. Vb"NKATARAMIAH, JJ.)

Civil Strvice-Can a person promoted to a post on act1'ng basis be denied
the benefit of the scale of pay altached to the post?

c •
The appellant was promoted as an acting District Educcltion Officer but 1.
the order of promotio.Q. contained a super-added condition that she would
continue to draw her ·salary in her existing scale· of pay as a teacher. She
filed a writ petition contending that she was entitled to the pay of a District
Education Officer but the same was dismissed by the.High Court.

D Allowing the appeal,

~ELD : The counter affidavit filed 'on behalf of the Government of
Haryana offers no rational explanation for Jenying the pay of District Edu-
cation Officer to the appellant after she· was promoted to act as District
Education Officer. In the absence of any rule justifying such refusal to pay
E to an officer promoted to a higher post the salary of such higher post, the
appellant is entitled to be paid the salary of a District Education Officer fron1
the date she was promoted to the post [655 F-G] ·

CIVIL t\PPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6229 of . ~
1983.
F
Appeal by Special leave from the .Judgment aud Order dated
!
the 29th May, 1980 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in
C.W ,P. No. 1225 of\980.
c
KG, Bhagat, Addi, Soliciter General and K. K, Mohan for the
appellant.
•I
R N. Poddar For the Respondent.
H
•The Judgment of the Court was delivered by :

CHINNApPA REDDY' l Special leave grante4,
p, GROVER v. HARYANA ( Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 65~

Smt. P. Grover was an outstanding teacher. In 1968-69, the
Government of Haryana honoured her by presenting the State Award A
for teachers. She attained the age of superannuation on August 20,
. 1978. About two years before she attained the age of superannuation,
she was promoted .as acting District Education Officer with effect
from July 19, 1976. The Government of Haryana had taken a policy
decision as early as in 1965 that the Services of teachers, who had
received the National or State Awards, should be extended until they .B
attained the· age of 60 years, on au year by year basis, if their service
record continued to be .good otherwise. Pursuant to the policy
decision, Smt. Grover's services were extended first by ·one year and
later by another year. During the period of extension of service,
she worked as Principal, Government Higher Secondary School,
Mahendergarh. She finally retired from service on August 31, 1980.
c

We mentioned that she was promoted as an acting District
Education Officer with effect from July 19, 1976. The order of
promotion contained a super-added condition that she would draw D
her own pay scale' which apparently meant that she would continue
. to draw her salary on her pay scale prior to promotion. The initial
order extending her services recited that she was an acting District
Education Officer, but contained a super-added condition _that her
pay would not be more than the maximum of the Principal's grade.
Smt. Grover claims that having been promoted as District Education
E
Officer, she was entitled to the pay of a District Education Officer
and there was no justification for denying the same to her. A writ
petition filed by her was dismissed by the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana and she is before µs by way of special leave under Art. 136
of the Constitntion. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the F
Government of Haryana offers no rational explanation for denying
the pay of District Education Officer to Smt. P. Grover after she was
promoted to ace as District Education Officer. All that was said in
the counter-affidavit was that there were no Class-I post available .
and therefore, she was not entitled to be paid the salary of District
Education Officer. We are unable to understand the reason given in G
the counter-affidavit. She was promoted to the post of District
Education Officer, a Class-I post, on an acting basis. Our. attention
was not invited to any rule which provides that promotion on an
acting basis would riot entitle the officer promoted to the pay of the
post. In the absence of any rule justifying such refusal to pay to an H
Qfficer promoted to a ltigher post the salary Qf s11ch hi(lher post (th~
. 656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983] 3 s.c.R.

validity of such a rule would be doubtful if it existed), we must hold
that Smt. Grover is entitled to be paid the salary of a District
Education Officer fro:m the date she was promoted to the post, that is,
j
''

·.
July 19, 1976;until she retired from service oil August 31, 1980. The
appeal is accordingly allowed with costs.

B '
H.L.C. Appeal allowed,

·l•·