An in-charge posting creates no vested right to continue in that post.

The petitioner, a contractual employee serving as an Assistant Engineer, was posted as In-charge District Engineer, Giridih, in his own pay scale by notification dated 31 July 2025.

The State later gave the in-charge posting to a permanent employee, who assumed charge.

The petitioner alleged that other similarly situated contractual employees continued to hold independent charge and that he had been discriminated against under a departmental circular dated 19 May 2026.

The intervenor’s application to be added was allowed; the State had not filed a counter-affidavit.

1. Whether the petitioner’s in-charge posting gave him a vested right to remain as In-charge District Engineer, Giridih.

2. Whether the petitioner could seek consideration of his claim of disparity with similarly situated contractual employees.

An in-charge or current-duty-charge posting is a stop-gap arrangement and does not confer a vested or indefeasible right to remain in the post.

In State of Punjab & Ors. v. Arun Kumar Aggarwal & Ors., (2007) 10 SCC 402, the Supreme Court held that current-duty charge does not create an indefeasible right to the post or a right to regularisation.

The Court also allowed the petitioner to raise his claim of unequal treatment for consideration in accordance with law and the principle of parity.

The petitioner was a contractual employee who held the in-charge post only in his own pay scale; that arrangement did not give him a right to continue after another employee was placed in charge.

The Court therefore found no basis to grant relief on the claim to retain the post, particularly as the petitioner had shown no financial loss.

However, it considered his separate contention that similarly situated contractual employees continued to hold independent charge and permitted him to raise that disparity before the competent respondent.

The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned respondent regarding the alleged disparity; the respondents were directed to decide the matter in accordance with law and the principle of parity within eight weeks of receiving the order.