Entitlement to Higher Pay-Scale for Officiating Duties on Post with Greater Responsibilities cannot be Contractually Waived.

The petitioner, originally appointed as an Assistant Treasurer in 1976 and later promoted to Joint Controller (Finance & Accounts) in 2007, was transferred via notification dated 01.12.2009 to respondent No. 2 University against the vacant post of "Comptroller" in his own pay-scale

The petitioner discharged the duties of Comptroller from 03.12.2009 until his retirement.

His representation for promotion to the post of Controller (F&A) was rejected on 08.02.2011 because no sanctioned posts were vacant.

The petitioner sought the pay-scale of the post of Comptroller based on "equal pay for equal work" and statutory provisions, while the respondents argued he was only entitled to his original pay-scale as the Board of Management had not approved a higher scale for him as a secondment employee.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to be promoted to the post of Controller (Finance & Accounts) despite the absence of a vacant sanctioned post

Whether an employee who officiates and discharges duties on a higher post (Comptroller) is entitled to the pay-scale of that post, notwithstanding the lack of formal approval from the Board of Management

The court applied the principle that promotion is not a matter of right but a right to be considered, provided a vacancy exists and the candidate fulfills the criteria.

Regarding officiating pay, the court relied on the Supreme Court precedent in State of Punjab v. Dharam Pal (2017) 9 SCC 395, which established that if a person officiates in a higher post with greater responsibilities, they are normally entitled to the salary of that post.

Furthermore, it applied the principle from Hari Om Sharma v. Association of India, holding that agreements or undertakings where an employee waives the right to higher salary for officiating work are contrary to law, public policy, and Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872.

The Court first dismissed the claim for promotion, reasoning that since no post of Controller (F&A) was vacant, the petitioner had no legal right to seek promotion.

However, regarding the officiating salary, the Court found it undisputed that the petitioner served as Comptroller, a higher responsibility post.

The Court rejected the University's defense that the Board of Management had not approved the pay-scale, holding that administrative delays or internal failures to obtain approval cannot penalize the employee once the employer has extracted work for that higher post.

Following the Dharam Pal ratio, the Court determined that the denial of the Comptroller's pay-scale was arbitrary and unjustified because the petitioner had effectively discharged those statutory duties.

he is legally entitled to the pay-scale of the post of Comptroller for the period he served in that capacity.

The Court directed respondent No. 2 University to pay the difference in salary between the post of Joint Controller (F&A) and Comptroller from the date of his joining until the end of his service, along with interest at 6% per annum within two months.