 Early Times Report
Jammu, Oct 15: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that compelling an employee to discharge the responsibilities of a higher post while paying him a lower salary amounts to workplace exploitation, which is impermissible in law. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Rajesh Sekhri made these observations while dismissing an appeal filed by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir against a Single Bench judgment granting substantive promotion and consequential benefits to a Municipal Council Sopore employee.
The case concerned Ghulam Mohammad Sheikh, who was initially engaged as a daily wager in Municipal Committee Sopore in 1980 and whose services were regularised in 1988.
The Court observed that Sheikh's similarly situated colleague, Khazir Mohammad Shah, was promoted as Jamadar/Sanitary Supervisor in 1994, while Sheikh was denied similar treatment despite having been regularised in the same year.
The respondent subsequently approached the High Court, which in 1999 directed the authorities to consider his claim for promotion. However, the direction was not implemented in letter and spirit.
The Court noted that Sheikh had been performing the duties of Jamadar/Sanitary Supervisor since June 2000, initially in his own pay and grade and subsequently with charge allowance from April 28, 2005.
The Executive Officer of Municipal Council Sopore had also recommended upgrading his post to that of Sanitary Supervisor, but the Director Urban Local Bodies rejected his claim by invoking the J&K Urban Local Body Institutions (Management) Service Recruitment Rules, 2008.
The Single Bench, while allowing Sheikh's petition on May 2, 2023, held that he should be deemed substantively appointed and promoted as Sanitary Supervisor from April 28, 2005, with all consequential benefits.
The UT administration challenged the judgment before the Division Bench, contending that merely performing the duties of a higher post did not confer any right to substantive promotion or the corresponding pay scale.
Government Advocate Ilyas Nazir Laway appeared for the appellants, while Advocate B. A. Zargar represented the respondent.
Rejecting the Government's contentions, the Division Bench observed that although an employee ordinarily cannot claim the pay scale of a higher post merely because he has performed its duties, an exception exists where the employee has been formally ordered to discharge the responsibilities of that post.
“Making an employee to perform higher level responsibilities while paying him lower salary amounts to work place exploitation, which is not countenanced in law,” the Bench observed.
The Court further held that Sheikh's promotional rights had accrued much before the enforcement of the 2008 Recruitment Rules and, therefore, his claim could not be rejected by applying rules introduced subsequently.
The Bench observed that the authorities should have considered his entitlement under the legal framework applicable on April 28, 2005, rather than relying upon the subsequent recruitment rules, which operated prospectively.
Finding no illegality or impropriety in the Single Bench judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the Government's Letters Patent Appeal, LPA No. 78/2024, along with connected applications and upheld the directions granting substantive promotion and consequential benefits to the employee. (JNF) |
