STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. SURENDRA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this intra court appeal, the State of Jharkhand has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 10/2/2022 in W.P. (S) No. 794 of 2021.

(2.) The private respondent was appointed as the Drugs Inspector. He was given additional charge of Deputy Director (Drugs), Drugs Control Directorate, Ranchi for the period from 31/12/2013 to 5/2/2015 and he discharged duties as Deputy Director, Drugs. Again, he was given additional charge of Joint Director, Drugs Control Directorate, Ranchi from 5/2/2015 till his superannuation on 30/9/2021. However, he was not given promotion and other consequential benefits, therefore, he approached this Court by filing writ application order of which is impugned before us in this L.P.A.

(3.) Although he had made several prayers, the learned Single Judge only granted relief of higher pay scale for the period, he has discharged higher responsibilities. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arindam Chattopadhyay and others -Vs- State of West Bengal and others, (2013) 4 SCC 152. In fact, we have already relied upon two judgments of reported case viz. State of Punjab Vs. B.K. Dhir [(2017) 9 SSC 337] and State of Punjab and Another Vs. Dharam Pal [(2017) 9 SCC 395] while deciding L.P.A. No. 287 of 2021 on 21/2/2023. Moreover, Rule 89 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 provides for officiating pay. It reads as follows:-