COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 946/2001 Satya Prakash Thapliyal …….Petitioner Versus Director of Higher Education & Others …….Respondents Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Sri V.K. Bist, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Sangeeta Miyan, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 2. 2nd April, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. The petitioner was appointed as Library Clerk vide order dated 29.7.1985 which is contained as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. After the retirement of Librarian Sri S.P. Nautiyal, petitioner was given the charge of Librarian on 2.4.1994 and since then he has been discharging the duties of Librarian in the institution. Charge of Librarian was taken over by the petitioner in compliance of the order dated 24.3.1994, which is contained as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. Subsequently the petitioner also obtained the requisite qualifications prescribed for the post of Librarian. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to get the salary of the post of Librarian. 2. Both the respondents contested the writ petition by filing their separate counter affidavit thereby rebutting the averment of the petitioner that he was ever handed over the charge of Librarian. Respondents have contended that the petitioner was handed over the charge of books only. But an experience certificate dated 20.6.1998, contained as Annexure No. 3, has been issued by the Principal of the institution whereby it has been certified that the petitioner is holding the charge of Librarian since 1.4.1994, which goes to establish that the petitioner was given the charge of Librarian in April, 1994 and since then he is discharging the duties of Librarian in the institution. As such, the petitioner was entitled to get the pay and allowances of that post. 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 allowances of the post 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. (P.C. Verma, J.) Prabodh