HC raps Haryana government for denying section officer pay to employees serving in higher roles for over a decade

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has virtually rapped Haryana government for not granting section officer’s pay and allowances to employees even after they performed duties of the post for seven to 15 years without break, while remaining in their original pay scale.

Directing the release of such pay and allowances, Justice Namit Kumar made it clear that a “model employer” should have gracefully acceded to the request and demand for higher pay and emoluments, particularly after assigning these employees the work and responsibilities of a higher post.

“A model employer sets the standard for excellence in human resource management, fostering a positive work environment and promoting employee wellbeing, driving institutional success through engaged, motivated employees and can create a positive work environment and achieve long-term success,” Justice Kumar added.

The matter was placed before Justice Kumar after the employees sought the quashing of an order dated November 28, 2019, whereby their claim for pay scale/emoluments of the section officer’s higher post was rejected. The state’s stand in the matter was that they were appointed as a stopgap arrangement in their own pay scales. As such, they were not entitled to the relief claimed.

Quoting from Black’s Law Dictionary, Justice Kumar noted that the term “stopgap arrangement” referred to temporary or unplanned measures used to fix a problem that is unexpected.

“In today’s fast-paced and dynamic world, organisations often face unexpected challenges and gaps that require immediate attention. A stopgap arrangement is a temporary solution designed to bridge these gaps until a more permanent fix can be implemented,” Justice Kumar noted.

The court, at the same time, asserted that the petitioners had undoubtedly performed the duties of the section officer’s post for a “long period of seven to 15 years” while remaining in their original pay scale without any break. It was a settled principle of law that the employer was always in a position of dominance. As such, the petitioners would not be “estopped” from seeking their legal rights merely because the government had incorporated certain conditions favourable to itself in its orders.

Justice Kumar added the respondents made a conscious decision to utilise the petitioners’ services as section officers, having deemed them eligible and suitable, particularly as they had cleared “SAS Part-I”.

The court asserted, “It is an admitted fact that the petitioners have worked as full-fledged section officers since they have been offered posts from the year 2004 onwards; therefore, there is no legal or other justification for denying them the pay and allowances of the post of Section Officer… The State cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate in the same breath.”