DEPTT TRAINING AND TECH Vs. R L YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EVEN on second call, in Court none appeared for the respondent.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. Ashok Bhan, learned senior counsel for the appellant.

(3.) AT the outset we may point out that before the High Court the decision of this Court rendered in Ramakant Shripad Sinai Advalpalkar vs. Union of india and others (AIR 1991 SC 1145) has been referred to. However, the high Court has followed a decision of this Court in Selvaraj vs. Lt. Governor of Island, Port Blair and Others reported in (1998) 4 SCC 291 rendered by a two Judge Bench. The earlier decision is rendered by a three Judge Bench. We are of the view that the High Court erroneously followed the decision in Selvaraj (supra ). In that case the order of appointment itself stated that the appellant was to look after the higher post temporarily and in an officiating capacity. In that case the appellant was a primary school Teacher. By an order passed by the Director of education he was asked to look after the work of Secretary (Scouts ). In the order it was clearly stated that the appellant would be entitled to the salary of the post of Secretary (Scouts ). It is also not disputed that the appellant was drawing the scale of Rs. 1200-2040 whereas the scale of pay of Secretary (Scouts) was Rs. 1640-2900.