HANS RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are Junior Engineers working in Public Health Engineering Department, Haryana. They had served for about 20 years on the post. They were given the current duty charge of the post of Sub Divisional Engineer on different dates ranging from 20.4.2000 to 25.2.2005. The current duty charge continued till they were substantively promoted as Sub Divisional Engineers on different dates between 17.9.2010 and 22.12.2010. The services rendered on CDC is unbroken and continuous. In the order granting the current duty charge, there was a condition that they would perform the duties of the higher post but in their own pay scales. The current duty charge normally does not confer right to hold the post. However, if the arrangement is continued for a number of years on a post to which they are subsequently promoted without break, then the question arises whether the above stated limiting condition stipulated in the order conferring CDC would they be entitled to pay of the higher post and consequently to the arrears of difference of salary. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners did perform the full duties and responsibilities of the post of Sub Divisional Engineers although in their own pay scales.

(2.) The petitioners have approached this Court through the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution claiming mandamus to the respondents commanding them to give them various service benefits based on the length of service spent by the petitioners on current duty charge for the purposes of seniority and all other benefits, i.e., higher pay scales, increments and other monetary benefits including the ACP pay scales and CDC period towards pension and pensionary benefits etc. When this Court issued notice of motion on 17.3.2011, it passed the following order : -

(3.) There is obviously a typographical mistake in not mentioning the word "not" in the 4th line of the aforesaid order between the words "is" and "justified". Therefore, it becomes manifest that the word "not" in line 4 between "is" and "justified" has to be read in since it would take out the intended meaning. In view of the interim order, the issue of seniority is foreclosed against the petitioners and is not pressed.