Satish Kumar Mittal, J.:— Shri B.K Dhir petitioner, who retired from the Government service as Additional Director Panchayats on 31.10.1993, has filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 30.12.1996 (Annexure P-7), vide which his representation to promote him as Additional Director Panchayats from the back date was rejected and for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to promote him on regular basis to the post of Joint Director, Rural Development and then promote to the post of Additional Director, Panchayats, Punjab and to grant two promotional increments for each promotion at the rate of Rs. 125/- increment; and further for re-fixing his pay for the purpose of pension and other consequential benefits.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Block Development Officer in the Development of Rural Development and Panchayats in June, 1996. Thereafter, he was promoted as District Development and Panchayat Officer in the year 1985.

3. In the month of January, 1991, he was further promoted as Deputy Director (Land Development). Since the petitioner was senior-most Deputy Director, he was given the officiating charges to the post of Joint Director (RD), Punjab Chandigarh, with effect from 1.5.1993 vide letter dated 30.4.1993 Thereafter, vide notification dated 29.6.1993, the petitioner was conferred upon all the powers, duties and functions of the Director, Panchayats under the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Thereafter, vide order dated 23.6.1993, the petitioner was assigned to work of the post of Additional Director, Panchayats, Punjab. He assumed the charges of the said post on 1.7.1993 Vide notification dated 23.9.1993, the petitioner conferred upon the powers of Government under Sections 102(6) and 105(5) of the Act. He was also conferred upon the powers of the Director, Panchayats, Punjab under the Act, on 31.10.1993, the petitioner retired while he was discharging the duties of the post of Additional Director, Panchayats. During his service period, he filed representation on 20.9.1993 seeking his promotion to the post of Joint Director and then to the post of Additional Director. He also submitted representation to the respondents to grant him exemption from the Draft Service Rules and to give him regular promotion as joint Director after granting exemption from the essential qualifications for the post of Joint Director. The said exemptions were not granted and the petitioner was not promoted to the post of Joint Director or Additional Director, as claimed by him in the representations. Ultimately, the respondents rejected the representation filed by the petitioner vide order dated 30.12.1996 (Annexure P-7), while observing that the demand made by the petitioner is not genuine, therefore, the same cannot be accepted as his request for relaxation of the qualifications for promotion to the post of Joint Director was no accepted.

4. In view of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner submitted in his petition that the respondents have wrongly denied the benefit of promotion to him to the post of Joint. Director and then to the post of Additional Director, Panchayats. He actually worked on the post of Joint Director from 1.5.1993 to 30.6.1993 and on the post of Additional Director from 1.7.1993 to 31.10.1993, but he was not paid the pay scale of the said post, as such, action of the respondents is against the law and doctrine of equal pay for equal work. He further prayed that after getting pay scales of those posts and granting promotion increments, his Last Pay Drawn be re-fixed for the purpose of pension etc.

5. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents appeared and filed written statement and contested the claim put forward by the petitioner. It has been stated that as per the Draft Service Rules of Class-1, which were duly approved by the Punjab Public Service Commission and the Chief Secretary Government Punjab, a minimum period of five years service as Deputy Director for promotion to the post of Joint Director was prescribed. When the petitioner was given the officiating charge of the post, of Joint Director in April, 1993, he was having the experience of only two years and three months on the post of Deputy Director. Though he was not qualified but was given officiating charge will not confer any right upon him toward seniority; he will continue to draw his pay in pay sca|e of Deputy Director, Panchayats and no extra financial benefit will be given to him for this officiating charge; no right for regular promotion to the post of Joint Director (RD) will accrue to him on the basis or this officiating charge; regular promotion can only be made after recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee and after approval by the competent authority and this officiating charge can be taken back from him any time without giving any prior notice. Therefore, it has been urged that the petitioner is having no legal right for promotion on account of the handing over the aforesaid officiating charge. It is further averred that vide office order dated 23.6.1993, the petitioner was only assigned the work of the post of Additional Director. Panchayats vide Annexure R-2 with the specific conditions that this officiating charge will not confer any right upon him towards seniority; he will draw his pay in the pay scale of Deputy Director against the post of Joint Director (RD) and no extra financial benefit will be g: ven to him for this officiating charge; no right for regular promotion to the post of Joint Director (RD) will accrue to him on the basis of this officiating charge; regular promotion can only be made after recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee and after approval by the competent authority and this officiating charge can be taken back from him any time without giving any prior notice. Thus, the handing over of officiating charge of the post of Joint Director, Rural Development and Additional Direcor, Panchayats, Punjab do not confer any legal right on the petitioner for regular promotion to these two posts and he is not entitled for the promotional increments as well as the regular pay scale to the aforesaid post.

6. Shri Arihant Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had actually worked on the post of Joint Director from 1.5.1996 to 30.6.1993 and on the post of Additional Director from 1.7.1993 to 31.10.1993, therefore, he is, at least, entitled for the pay scales of the said posts. The denying of the salary in these payscales is violative of the doctrine of ‘Equal pay for equal work’. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. P. Grover v. State of Haryana, (1983) 4 SCC 291 : AIR 1983 S.C 1060 : [1983 (2) SLR 734 (SC)] and submitted that even though the petitioner was working on the post of Joint Director and Additional Director on officiating basis, yet he is entitled for the pay of the aforesaid promotional post and there is no justification for denying at least this benefit to him. He further submitted that even though p. specific condition was imposed that the petitioner will not be entitled for the pay scale of the officiating post and he will continue to draw his pay in the pay scale of Deputy Director, Panchayats, but such condition is not reasonable and valid and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and principle of ‘Equal pay for equal work.’ In this regard he relied upon decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Union Territory v. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, 2001 (4) Services Law Reporter 5, wherein conditions incorporated in the appointment letter of the lecturers appointed in the Government Polytechnic on contract basis were struck down as illegal and ultra vires of Articles 14, 16 and 39 of the Constitution.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record of the case. I am of the view that there is no force in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and the present writ petition liable to be dismissed. The claim of the petitioner for regular promotion to the posts of Joint Director and Additional Director was rightly rejected by the respondents, as he was not qualified for promotion to these two posts, as he was not possessing the minimum requisite experience on’ the lower post i.e post of Deputy Director, Panchayats. Though the petitioner was not qualified for promotion and was not entitled for any promotion to the post of Joint Director or Additional Director, but he was given only the officiating charge on the said post in public interest with specific conditions. That was not officiating promotion. The petitioner was only given the officiating charge. Once the aforesaid officiating charge was given with specific condition that the said officiating charge will not confer any right upon the petitioner towards seniority and he will continue to draw his pay in the payscale of Deputy Director against the post of Joint Director and no extra financial benefit will be given to him for the officiating charge, the handing over of the said officiating charge will not confer any legal right on the petitioner either for promotion to the said posts or to receive the pay in the pay scales of those posts. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In Smt. P. Grover's case (supra), the petitioner was a teacher and she was promoted on the higher post on acting basis and she was fully qualified for the promotion to the said post. It was held that the benefit of pay scale of the higher post cannot be determined to her. But in the present case, the facts are entirely different. Here the petitioner is not qualified for promotion on the higher post. He was not given officiating promotion, but was only given the officiating charge for some period in his own pay scale. Therefore, the pay scale of higher post can not be given to him particularly when a specific condition was imposed that the will not be entitled for the pay scale of the higher post, which he accepted while assuming the charge of the higher post. The facts of Union Territory's case (supra) are also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as costs.

9. Petition dismissed.