3 wsr iiT;i;ftq' ^E.'q' sr^r THHT srargl^ afiR;?^, ^rqsr arr^? aiiw^H !A <J^< af^T q? T) fiso^o st.v. snra TO. ql-. TOqT-ft, 3TT^ 6 1 srwv sfi trteicT TOTpft ^HTl=:?g?3 ?fsnTi!T, inwHq ^fl'13T?T r IfETl^STt'RT, I'f^^rg' - WT ^ferr, 158, S^T;T W7, ttirrfl'^Tft' ^? rray qoyoj &£5 ; 01. ^c^ g^3T STTffi, ?Trr - ^ ?rte, (iWf^t 'KW ^ ^VSf^Q I^T^M'f qFW ST^, srtTTre qOiTO 02. (NTtl'B, a<»ffliin "ftigr ggr^iTiTO, ®SS?TVSR, 'ft(rra soyo 03. y!xif4, ^nwli ^ft1=raf^[r vftsss, rr^7 Koyo VTTT 19, MT^rt'W 3Tf^??BT STfWwi 1985. ^fefc 'W ^^^^ ''""Ss.. ~^'i .<sia» 8-KC-22 •^sr^Tpncm, »Tfl+)li'o,f^irey t- :'K- ttwvn ^fif»<*> U£K2..1l5.^-^200 +i<<Ii-i4'i-< •WRff ^ 'fe'at '<fa'yi< ^TSrfSCTSn^l Shri "Rakesh Antliony, coi|i Sliri Ajit Siagh, Panel Lav^, insel for fhe petitioner. ^vei for the State. In short, tlie grievaD.ee 4 order dated 2.11.1989 I'Anaexh. reauu'ed to oerform duties iil Libraiy ui the same Institu^on, he additional pay ia view of pr| M.P./C.G. Fuadamental Rules. The said provisioa provid contingencies indicated ia vario Leamed counsel for fhe was e-ititled to additional pay m (iii) ofQie Fuiidaineii.tal Rules. A bare perusal of fh.is p additioaal pay, fhere has to b' post; In fhe present case, it is n (Armexure A-1) fhat fhere was a order of nolding aii additional c of fhe petition.er. Froin order existmg Librarv was bifurcated petitioner is that ia view of 'the ire A-li, whereby the petitioner was the separatelv fonned Ai-chitecture was en.titi.ed to payiaent of ivision contauied ia F.R. 49 of the :s for payineat of additional is clauses contaiiied flieicia. petitioner subiuits fhat the 'petitioaer view of nrovision contained ia Rule 49 t-ovision shcws that ia order to clau a formal order of appoititinent on a t)t revealed frora order dated 2.11.1989 ^iy ne\¥post created on which a fonaal ^iarge of fue post was passed iu. favour i|lated 2.11.1989, it appears that the Petitioner was working as Assistaiit ;..iBiir;a....w»B..(?..,if"' ^' 'iti> ''?. , ~'M3S*i ^lKC-22 i- ^/ -*" 3IT^T-E!>T 1^;rig?3Ti|?t *t|i»B'Hftt( nha. -yss ^rraiWt, dflly'is, feTOy wsipir a>*fi°h sn^T'g^itwgft'f V Libradan in the Institution. In substantively crcated post of •qipfetN •qTR?lS'q ft^'(f»R5R •i? aiRgq sn^! fhe absence of 'tbere beiag auv fonni ora.er of appomtmeut/handi4g over fae charge of any ofher |ie saine cadre or higher cadre iu the same office or' m some other (jiffice, provision of F.R.49 (iu) are not. attracted. Petitioner is not entitl^d ta the claita ofadditional pay. Petition is accordinglv disi Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge 1