Current Duty Charge Service Can't Be Counted For Regular Service For promotion : Punjab & Haryana High Court

Background Facts

The respondent joined as a Junior Engineer on 23.05.1996 in the Haryana Public Works Department. He was transferred to the Haryana Public Health Engineering Department on 15.07.2004. When he was working as a Junior Engineer, he was assigned the Current Duty Charge of Sub-Divisional Engineer (Mechanical) on 24.08.2011, in his own pay scale. He was subsequently promoted on a regular basis as Sub-Divisional Engineer (Mechanical).

The promotion from the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer to Executive Engineer is governed by the Haryana Service of Engineers, Group A, Public Health Engineering Department Act, 2009. At the time of consideration for further promotion, the respondent claimed that his experience while working on Current Duty Charge should be treated as service rendered in the cadre of Sub-Divisional Engineer for calculating the requisite eight years service. His claim was declined by the State. It was held that the eight years service was to be counted from the date of his regular promotion in 2020.

Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed a writ petition. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition and held that the experience gained while working on Current Duty Charge was liable to be taken into consideration for computing the requisite eight years service.

Aggrieved by the same, the State filed the appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the order of the Single Judge.

It was argued by the State that the Single Judge misread the prescribed Rule to mean that eight years experience was required for further promotion, whereas under the prescribed Rules, eight years complete service in the cadre concerned is required. It was further submitted that the service rendered by respondent on Current Duty Charge while substantially working as a Junior Engineer could have been treated as experience, but cannot be treated as eight years service envisaged under the prescribed Rules to fulfil the eligibility for further promotion to Class 1.

On the other hand, it was argued by the respondent that eight years service as Sub-Divisional Engineer is needed for promotion, but the service rendered on Current Duty Charge should also be counted keeping in view the provisions of the said Rules. It was submitted that once promotion can be made against an officiating vacancy, experience gained on Current Duty Charge is valid.

It was further argued that even if the order assigning the Current Duty Charge mentioned that respondent would continue in his own rank and pay, while officiating on a higher post, the respondent could claim the salary as per settled principle of law. It was argued that non-grant of salary will not deny him the benefit of service rendered on Current Duty Charge to be taken as valid service for further promotion.

Findings and Observations of the Court:

It was observed by the Division Bench that as per Section 6 of the 2009 Act, promotion from Group B to Group A, requisite eight years complete service alongwith passing of the departmental examination is necessary. It was further observed that the Rules define a member of service as an officer appointed substantively to a cadre post, which means substantive appointment and not temporary appointment.

It was further observed that the Current Duty Charge assigned to respondent cannot be treated as a substantive appointment to the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer. It was noted that the Current Duty Charge means a stop-gap appointment for a particular period in a higher cadre, and given in own rank and pay of Junior Engineer cannot be treated as a substantive appointment to a Class 1 service even against an officiating vacancy.

It was further observed that the benefits in the cadre were extended to respondent only from the date of his substantive appointment order dated 05.05.2020 and not from the date on which he was assigned Current Duty Charge i.e. 24.08.2011.

It was held by the Division Bench that the Single Judge granted relief primarily on the basis of experience gained while working on Current Duty Charge. It was further held by the Court that wherever requisite experience is needed for promotion, experience rendered even on Current Duty Charge will be valid, however, where the Rules prescribe completed eight years service in the particular cadre, the requirement necessarily relates to requisite service rendered after substantive appointment to that cadre.

It was further held that the period spent on Current Duty Charge cannot be counted as service for computing the requisite eight years service in the cadre of Sub-Divisional Engineer. It was further clarified that the respondent would be entitled to claim further promotion only after completing eight years regular service in the cadre of Sub-Divisional Engineer, unless the prescribed period is relaxed by the Government.

With the aforesaid observations, the order of the Single Judge was set aside by the Division Bench. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State was allowed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : State of Haryana and Another versus Sanjeev Batish and Another

Case No. : LPA-2926-2025 (O&M)

Counsel for the Appellant : Aman Mittal, DAG, Haryana

Counsel for the Respondents : D. S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate with A. S. Chadha, Advocate