Supreme Court of India
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus LAL SINGH AND ORS.
- Decided
- 18 November 1996
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 718 · 1996 INSC 1323
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Delay condoned. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
p. 718, margin F
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, made on November 2, 1995 in CWP No. 16409/92.
p. 718, margin G
The controversy raised is for the advance increment. In which scale of pay the respondents are entitled to advance increment is the question? Admittedly, the respondents were appointed on substantive posts of JBT Teachers and they were temporarily promoted as Head Teachers. The scale of pay for the JBT Teachers is Rs. 1200-2100. They are discharging the duties temporarily as Head Teachers in the initial pay <1f Rs.d4!0. They claimed advance increment for discharging the duty as.Head Teachers. The High Cout1 has construed that they are entitled to the advance increment as Head teachers, Rule 4(4) of the Punjab Civil Service Volume I, part I which reads as under:
p. 719, margin A
"4.4. The initial substantive pay of a Government employee who is appointed substantively to a post on a time-scale of pay is regulated as follows: (i) when appointment to the new post involves the assumption of duties or responsibilities of greater importance (as interpreted for the purpose of rule 4.13) than these attaching the such permanent post, he will draw as initial pay the stage of the time-scale next above his substantive pay in respect of
p. 719, margin B
the old post".
p. 719, margin D
A reading thereof would clearly indicate that initial substantive pay of a Government employee who is appointed substantively to a post on a time-scale of pay, is regulated, if he holds a lien on a permanent post, other than a tenure post and when appointment to the new post involves the assumption of duties or responsibilities of greater importance, then he will draw as initial pay the stage of the time scale next above his substantive pay in respect of the old post. Thus, it could be seen that when JBT Teachers was appointed temporarily as a Head Teacher, he is entitled to draw, since he is holding responsibilities of greater importance as a Head Teacher, one advance increment in his old post in the time scale next above the substantive pay on the date of his temporarily promotion as a Head Teacher.
p. 719, margin D
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court stands modified. They are entitled to one advance increment in the scale of JBT Teacher at the time of promotion while discharging the duties as Head Teachers. No costs. R.P. Appeal allowed.
p. 719, margin F