Srinagar, Nov 4: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has upheld the promotion and consequential service benefits of a Municipal Committee employee who performed the duties of a Sanitary Supervisor while receiving a lower pay scale, observing that assigning higher responsibilities without appropriate remuneration amounts to workplace exploitation.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Rajesh Sekhri dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, upholding the earlier judgment directing that the employee be treated as substantively promoted as Sanitary Supervisor with effect from April 28, 2005, along with all consequential benefits.
The employee, initially engaged as a daily wager, was regularised as a Safai Karamchari in 1988. Although his counterpart was promoted as Jamadar/Sanitary Supervisor in 1994, his own claim for promotion was ignored.
He subsequently approached the High Court, which directed the authorities to consider his promotion from the date his counterpart, Khazir Mohammad Shah, was promoted. However, instead of granting substantive promotion, the Executive Officer allowed him to work as Assistant Sanitary Jamadar in his existing pay and grade in 2000.
The employee again approached the court seeking appropriate pay and grade. Subsequently, the Executive Officer permitted him to work as Sanitary Supervisor in place of Incharge Sanitary Supervisor, granted him charge allowance and recommended his upgradation to the Director, Urban Local Bodies.
The Director rejected the recommendation, citing his alleged ineligibility under the J&K Urban Local Body Institutions (Management) Service Recruitment Rules, 2008. Challenging the decision, the employee approached the writ court, which directed that he be deemed to have been substantively appointed and promoted as Sanitary Supervisor from April 28, 2005, with all consequential benefits. The authorities were also directed to create a post retrospectively or adjust him against an equivalent vacant post.
Challenging the order, the UT administration argued before the Division Bench that the employee had never been given independent charge of Sanitary Supervisor but had merely been asked to assist the area Jamadar. It maintained that his inclusion in the list of Incharge Sanitary Supervisors did not confer a right to substantive promotion or the higher pay scale.
The employee, however, maintained that he had been performing the duties of Jamadar/Sanitary Supervisor since June 8, 2000, initially in his existing pay and grade and subsequently with charge allowance from April 28, 2005.
Examining the matter, the Division Bench observed that, as a general rule, an employee is entitled to the pay of the post to which he is substantively appointed. Merely performing duties attached to a higher post does not ordinarily confer an automatic right to its pay scale.
However, the Bench noted an important exception: when an employee is formally directed to hold charge of a higher post, he becomes entitled to the pay scale attached to that position.
The court further observed that the employee's right to promotion had arisen before the introduction of the 2008 Recruitment Rules. His claim had first arisen in 1994, when his counterpart was promoted, and subsequently in 2000, when he was assigned higher responsibilities.
It held that the authorities should have considered his claim under the rules applicable on April 28, 2005, rather than applying the 2008 Rules retrospectively.
Emphasising the principle of fair remuneration, the Bench observed that requiring an employee to discharge higher-level responsibilities while paying him a lower salary amounted to workplace exploitation.
Finding no ground to interfere with the writ court's decision, the Division Bench upheld the judgment and dismissed the UT administration's appeal.