STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. DEEP SINGH SAHOTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the State of Punjab against the judgment dated 3.7.2013 passed by learned single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent has been allowed and he has been held entitled to the pay and allowances of the post of Director for the period he had worked on such post i.e. from 30.11.1999 to 31.12.2000 with all consequential benefits. The deduction of Rs. 16,380/- from the gratuity of the respondent has also been ordered to be refunded to him. The respondent has also been held entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of actual disbursement. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved, as narrated, in the appeal may be noticed. The respondent joined the department of agriculture, Punjab as Agriculture Officer on 17.7.1973. Later on he worked on the post of Joint Director, Agriculture and subsequently he was given current duty charge to the post of Director Agriculture and joined as such on 30.11.1999. His selection was challenged in this Court in CWP No. 9362 of 2000 and the order of his appointment as Director was quashed by this Court vide order dated 10.10.2000, Annexure P. 3. This Court further allowed the State Government to give him current duty charge of the post of Director Agriculture till the post was filled by promotion by adopting proper procedure. Accordingly, the respondent was reverted to the post of Joint Director, Agriculture, Punjab. The respondent through CWP No. 19580 of 2001 prayed for grant of pay scale for the post of Director of Agriculture, all consequential benefits alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum and pension. He also prayed for quashing the order for deduction of Rs. 16,380/- from his gratuity. Vide order dated 3.7.2013, this Court allowed the said petition with the relief as mentioned in para. 1 above. Hence the present appeal by the State of Punjab.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

(3.) The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the respondent employee was entitled to salary for the higher post for the period he had worked on the same.