HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 190 (S/B) of 2003 Yogendra Singh Bisht S/o Late Sri Santan Singh Bisht R/o Majri Mafi, Post Office I.I.P. Nawada Mohakampur, District Dehradun …Petitioner Versus District Magistrate and another …Respondents Mr.Alok Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Joshi, Brief Holder for the State. Per Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for seeking the following reliefs:- “a. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith grant salary and other allowances for the post of Supply Clerk to the petitioner ever since 22/01/1998. b. Issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. c. Award the costs of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The petitioner was initially appointed to the class-IV post of Peon in the office of District Supply Officer, Dehradun on 01/05/1973. On 21/11/1996 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Daftri. The post of Daftri also comes under the category of class-IV post. The petitioner was required to discharge the duties as Junior Clerk from time to time since 1985 in view of his work and performance. The petitioner has been assigned various other duties of Supply Clerk after 21/01/1998. The petitioner assigned the work of Junior Clerk 2 or the Supply Clerk while he was paid the salary of class-IV employee as Daftri. The petitioner has claimed the salary of Supply Clerk w.e.f. 22/01/1998 to 21/05/2003. The services of the petitioner was reverted from the post of Supply Clerk to Daftri on 21st May,2003. The petitioner has been claiming the regular salary for the post of the Junior Clerk/Supply Clerk w.e.f. 22/01/1998 to 21/05/2003. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The respondent has specifically pleaded that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Daftri and he has been paid the salary to the post of Daftri. It is also admitted that the District Supply Officer issued an order dated 23/10/2001 whereby the work was allocated to different supply clerks including the petitioner to look after the work of ration cards, inquiry forms and other relevant works. The petitioner was handed over charge of Supply Clerk by Sri Ramanand, Supply Clerk and thereafter the petitioner looked after the assigned work. It is also admitted in the counter affidavit that the work in relation to store was also undertaken by the petitioner which can also be discharged by Daftri. It is also admitted to the respondents that on account of temporary arrangement, work of Junior Clerk was undertaken from the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The petitioner has referred different orders in para 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the petition passed by the District Supply Officer by which the petitioner was assigned the duties of the Supply Clerk after 22nd January, 1998. The District Supply Officer has given the details of the work assigned to him 3 under these orders. All the work assigned to the petitioner is of class-III employee. As such, the above referred orders clearly reveal that the petitioner was discharging the duties of Junior Clerk. In the counter affidavit it is admitted by the respondents about the temporary arrangement made by the District Supply Officer for discharging the work as stated above. It is also settled position of law, if any government servant is deputed or posted to look after the work of superior post which bears greater responsibility, he should be paid due salary for such higher post. The petitioner had been paid the salary of Daftri and he had not been paid the salary of the Junior Clerk during this period when he discharged the work as Junior Clerk in the department. The petitioner is entitled to the difference of the salary from the department. By the interim order dated 22nd March, 2003 passed in writ petition, it was directed to the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner for the post of Junior Clerk/Supply Clerk for the period he had been working as such. The respondents have alleged in the counter affidavit that the arrears of the salary had been paid in compliance of the order of the Court to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also admitted that he has got the salary for the period he had discharged the work as Junior Clerk. 6. The respondents are directed to pay the salary and other allowances for the post of Supply Clerk to the petitioner since 21st January, 1998 to the date the petitioner discharged the function of Junior Clerk. As the difference of the amount has already been paid pursuant to the interim order dated 22/03/2003, the rule/order dated 22/03/2003 is made absolute. 4 7. In view of the above, the petition is liable to be allowed and is allowed accordingly. The rule/order dated 22/03/2003 is made absolute. No order as to costs. (J.C.S.Rawat, J.) 24th August, 2009 Shiv