WA 376/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. GOEL THEHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH The appellant, Shri Bhagaban Sarma has filed the present writ appeal against the order dated 3.9.2007 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 1220 of 2007. In the writ petition, the appellant/petitioner had sought the relief claim ing for a direction to the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 to clarify the position of the petitioner as to whether he should function as in-charge Headmaster or Assi stant Teacher of Madhya Panduri High School, Jamtola, Rongia of Kamrup District and to allow the appellant/ petitioner all financial benefits as admissible for functioning as In-charge Headmaster of the said school. The appellant is serving as Assistant Teacher of Madhya Panduri High School, Jam tola, Rangia of Kamrup District. It seems that the petitioner was allowed to hol d charge of the office of the Headmaster of the school, as the Headmaster of the school suffered from certain illness. It was the contention of the appellant/pe titioner that as the Headmaster was not fit to run the school administration, th e appellant/petitioner was asked to function as the In-charge Headmaster of the school. The appellant/petitioner also claims that the Headmaster even though was unable to carry out the duties of the Headmaster of the school, joined after his leave as Headmaster and exercised financial powers. Since the Headmaster was otherwise not well, the petitioner continued to carry out the duties of Headmaster as ass igned to him by the authorities. Such a situation created confusion in the mana gement of the affairs of the school. In the light of the above claimed circumstances, the appellant/ petitioner filed the Writ Petition (C) No. 1220/2007. We have perused the judgment and order dated 3.9.2007 passed by the Learned Sing le Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 1220/2007. The Learned Single Judge on the basis of the pleadings has discussed and decided all the issues raised by the petitioner. The petitioner was entrusted with the current charge of the post of Headmaster under F.R. 49 (c) in addition to his ow n duties as Assistant Teacher. The said temporary arrangement was made in view o f the leave taken by the regular incumbent i.e. the respondent No. 4 due to cert ain illness. Accordingly, temporary charge was given to the petitioner with effe ct from 10.10.2004 to 14.12.2004. Thereafter, by another order dated 21.6.2005 the petitioner was again allowed to look after the academic side of the school on temporary basis. It was the conte ntion of the petitioner that since the Headmaster (respondent No.4) was sufferin g from paralysis, he was not in a position to discharge the function and duties of the post of Headmaster. In such a situation it was the petitioner who was eff ectively functioning as the Headmaster discharging all the duties and responsibi lities of a regular Headmaster. It was also the contention of the petitioner tha t even though the Headmaster was not in a position to function as a Headmaster, he also continued to attend the school which led to confusion amongst the manage ment of the school. As regards this, the official respondents through their coun ter affidavit had clarified that the physical condition of the respondent No. 4 was examined by a Medical Board which had given the opinion that the respondent No. 4 was fit to resume and perform light duties. The Learned Single Judge after taking into account these aspects rejected the cl aim of the petitioner that respondent No. 4 was not fit to function as Headmaste r and that it was the petitioner who was virtually functioning as Headmaster of the school. Coming to the claim of the petitioner for providing financial benefit for the pe riod when he was asked to hold temporary charge of the office of the Headmaster of the school under F.R. 49 (c), the Learned Single Judge has come to the conclu sion that the petitioner is not entitled to receive any extra benefit in view of the fact that F.R. 49 (c) itself makes it very clear that in case of current du ty/ charge, the incumbent is not entitled to any extra benefit. This decision is also fortified by the decision of this Court rendered in Deba Kanta Sarmah Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2006(4) GLT 553 which was relied upon by the respondents. We are entirely in respectful agreement with the Learned Single Judge on his rea soned findings. The appellant has not been able to show any infirmity in the conclusion reached by the Learned Single Judge, which would invite intervention of this appellate C ourt. The Learned Counsel for the appellant had further strenuously argued that as the appellant/petitioner was made to function as Headmaster and made to discharge d uties of the office of the Headmaster, at least he is entitled to certain extra remuneration as he was made to discharge the duties of higher post of Headmaster in addition to his normal duties as Assistant Teacher. It is to be mentioned that when the petitioner was asked to discharge the functi on or to look after the function of the higher post of Headmaster of the school, nothing was mentioned in the order issued by the authority stating that the pet itioner would be entitled to any extra benefit or benefit of pay of the higher p ost. In absence of any specific order by the appropriate authority to grant additiona l benefit or to pay of charge of higher post, the appellant/ petitioner cannot c laim any additional benefit or the pay of the higher post. This issue has been also already settled by a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Asem Tombi Singh Vs. State of Manipur & Ors, reported in 2 006(4) GLT 608(FB). The Full Bench of this Court in the above referred case has held that, 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that an employee simply place d in charge of the higher post, without any appointment therein, in terms of F.R . 49 is not entitled to claim pay and allowances for such higher post. Similarly , an incumbent holding a higher post on Incharge basis under an order , which co ntains specific conditions that it would be without extra remuneration, is not e ntitled to read in the order more than what it discloses. Likewise, such employe e who is simply delegated the power of the higher post while serving in his subs tantive post in the lower cadre is also not entitled to get the higher pay scale , unless directed by the authority. The reference is answered accordingly. In the present case since there was no specific condition in the order i ssued by the authority for entitlement to any extra benefit for looking after th e office of the Headmaster, the claim of the appellant/petitioner cannot be ente rtained. We, accordingly, dismiss the writ appeal.