IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 874 OF 2006 (S/S) Satish Kumar ………………..Petitioner. Versus State of Uttaranchal and others. ……..…..Respondents. Smt. Seema Sirohi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 4. None appears for the respondent no. 5. Smt. Beena Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. / respondent no. 6. 13.8.2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.2.2006 passed by the respondent no. 3 contained in Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Librarian (Librarian – Cum- Clerk) in the B.S.M. Inter College (a Govt. aided College), Roorkee, District Haridwar on 1.11.1970 in the pay scale of Rs. 950- 1500 and retried on 27.7.2005. 3. According to the petitioner, Government started an scheme for giving training to all the Librarians for the promotion and development of Librarian for Madhyamik School in the year, 1988 and the petitioner too got this training from 26.6.1988 to 30.9.1988. 4. The petitioner has referred a G.O. issued by the State Government in the year, 1974 bearing No. 480/Pandrah-8-3099/1973, dated 24-1-1974, Lucknow 222001, wherein it is mentioned that all the employees working as teaching staff or non – teaching staff in the recognized madhyamik Schools obtaining grants in aid from the Govt. will be given same salary as employees working in the Government Madhyamik Schools. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred a judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 946 (S/S) of 2001 Satya Prakash Thapliyal Vs. Director of Higher Education & Ors, wherein this Court relying upon the Fundamental Rule 22-B(1) of Financial Hand Book as well as case of Jaswant Singh Vs. Punjab Poultry Field Staff Association & Ors reported in (2002) 1 SCC 261 has observed as under: “3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to Fundamental Rule 22-B(1), which provides as under: “Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, where a government servant holding a post in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity is promoted or appointed either in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity to another post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attached to the post held by him, his initial pay in the time-scale of the higher post shall be fixed at the stage next above the pay arrived at by notionally increasing his pay in respect of the lower post by one increment at the stage at which such pay has accrued” 4. Reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaswant Singh v. Punjab Poultry Field Staff Association & Others reported in (2002) 1 SCC 261, wherein the appellant was appointed as a Bird Attendant/Hatchery Man and after completing his training, he discharged the duties of a higher post of Chick Sexer although he was not eligible for the said post. The appellant claimed the same scale of pay as Chick Sexers. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “The High Court’s decision in Gobind Singh case did not direct the promotion of Gobind Singh. What was directed was the payment of salary and allowance of the psot of Chick Sexer since Gobind Singh had been discharging the duties of that post. Therefore, while the appellant’s promotion to the post of Chick Sexer cannot be upheld, given the fact that the appellant had discharged the duties of a Chick Sexer, he was at least entitled to the pay and other allowances attributable to that post during the period he carried out such duties.” 5. For the reasons recorded above and in view of the settled proposition of law, the writ petition succeeds. The petitioner shall be paid the salary and allowances of the post of Librarian with effect from the date he is discharging the duties of the said post. No order as to costs.” 6. Here in the present case too, the petitioner was appointed as Library Clerk as in the case cited above and was discharging the duties of Librarian in the Institution. Since, the facts of the case are almost similar to that cited above, therefore, the present case are decided in terms of the aforesaid case. 7. Writ Petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be paid the salary and allowances of the Librarian as revised from time to time from the date, he is discharging the duties of the said post. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 13.8.2008 Rathour