IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 80 of 2008 State of Uttarakhand & another. .……… Appellants Versus Sarju Prasad Tyagi & another. .………. Respondents. Mr. B.K. Gupta, Addl. Advocate General for the appellants. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.S. Bisht, Advocate for respondent No. 1. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral) A person asked to discharge the duties of a superior post is entitled to the benefits of Rule 22-B of the U.P. Fundamental Rules. Respondent No. 1 – writ petitioner, while working as English Record Keeper in Collectorate, was asked to discharge the duties of Administrative Officer during the period 2nd January, 1996 to 1st June, 1996. Respondent No. 1 – writ petitioner having had thus served in the superior post for the period as above, made a representation for release of his entitlement pursuant to the Rules for having had served in such higher post. That was not acceded to, compelling respondent No. 1 – writ petitioner to file a writ petition in the year 1999. That writ petition, having been transferred to this Court, has been decided by the judgment and order under appeal on 19th March, 2008. 2. In the Appeal, the contention is that respondent No. 1 – writ petitioner was not appointed to the post of Administrative Officer, but was asked to discharge certain duties attached to the post of Administrative Officer and, accordingly, Rule 22-B of the U.P. Fundamental Rules had no application in relation to him. The order dated 31st December, 1995 makes it abundantly clear that respondent No. 1 – writ petitioner was asked to discharge the duties of Administrative Officer during the period in question. That being the situation, the case of respondent No. 1 – writ petitioner is squarely covered by the provisions contained in the said Rules. The writ court, having asked the respondents to the writ petition to 2 discharge their duties owing towards respondent No. 1 – writ petitioner in terms of the said Rules, we find no reason to interfere. 3. The Appeal, accordingly, fails and the same is dismissed. However, the period of two months shall start from today. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.) 13.08.2010 13.08.2010 G