High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 6429 of 1996 3 and status and (ii) enhancement in the rank and status only. In both eventuality, the employee shall stand promoted, notwithstanding the fact that in the later situation he may not get higher pay scale. The promotion of an employee undoubtedly cannot work to disadvantage, namely, the emoluments drawn by him while serving in the feeder cadre cannot be reduced on the pretext of promotion. It is, however, not an essential condition of service that on promotion an employee must always be placed in higher pay scale. In fact Rule 4.4(c)(i) of the Punjab Civil Services, Vol. I, Part-I provides as follows :-
7. The provision in the statutory rules uniformly applicable to all services, thus, expressly deals with the situation where an employee is promoted to higher post carry duties and responsibilities of greater importance but in the same pay scale. His pay on such promotional post is required to be fixed at the stage next above his pay drawn by him on the lower post. In other words, he shall get one additional increment and the date of his annual increment shall also change i.e. on completion of 12 months' qualifying service from the date of such promotion. Such like promotee thus gets higher emoluments than what he has been drawing in the feeder cadre though he is not placed in a higher pay scale. To say it differently, the promotee employee gets higher rank and status as well as higher emoluments but not the higher pay scale. Since the import and construction of Rule 4.4(c)(i) of CSR or Rule 8.3(a) of Punjab Civil Services,1988 was not the subject matter of consideration in the cited decisions, the same are totally distinguishable and can not be applied to the Satyawan 2013.11.11 11:19 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 6429 of 1996 5 facts of the case in hand.
8. It is not the case of the petitioners that the benefit of Rule 4.4
(c) or 8(3)(a) of the Punjab Civil Services 1988 (Revised pay) Rules has not been extended to them.
9. Our above stated view is fortified by the following observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh and another vs. State of Punjab and others, (1994)5 SCC 392:-