She was promoted to the post of District Education Officer, a Class I post, on an acting basis.
The claim was put forth by the appellant that she was entitled to the pay of District Education Officer and there was numberjustification for 13 1 denying the same to her.
The order dated 09.12.2004 reads as follows ORDER On the retirement of Smt.
In the said case, the Division Bench of the High Court had placed reliance upon Smt.
7 7 The said orders have to be tested on the anvil of the Rules.
As the reasoning of the High Court is fundamentally based on enunciation of law propounded by the Court in Smt.
A two Judge Bench of this Court was dealing with the fact situation wherein keeping in view the policy decision, the appellant therein was promoted as an acting District Education Officer.
As stated earlier, while he was officiating on the said post, he was promoted on officiating basis to function in the post of Superintendent Grade I. The relevant portion of the said order reads as follow The official will work in their earlier own pay scale and above promotions will be subject to the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee.
The order of promotion companytained a superadded companydition that she would draw her own pay scale which apparently meant she would companytinue to draw her salary on her pay scale prior to promotion.
II is promoted as Superintendent Grade I in his own scale.
II as Superintendent Grade I and on account of proceeding on earned leave of Shri Bhinder Singh Supdt.
On account of promotion of Sh.
07.9.2004 Shri Ashwani Kumar Sr.
Kewal Singh Supdt.
Kewal Singh, Supdt.
II w.e.f.
Hence, the present appeal.
On that vacant post Sh.
