WP(C) 3556/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. A. Maleque, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel. Also heard Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Education as well as Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Finance De partment. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a directio n to the respondents to release the pay and allowances for the period from 1.8.1 988 to 21.2.1999, during which he was allowed to hold the charge of the post of District Adult Education Officer (for short DAEO) in addition to his own duties as Project Officer. After the aforesaid period during which the petitioner held the current charge of the post of DAEO, the petitioner was regularly promoted to the said post by order dated 25.2.1999 (Annexure-14). From the materials on rec ord it appears that time to time orders had been passed towards allowing the pet itioner to hold current charge of the office of the DAEO in addition to his own duties as Project Officer. Mr. A. Maleque, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since th e petitioner was entrusted with higher duties and responsibilities, he is entitl ed to receive salary for the higher post. In this connection, he has placed reli ance on the decisions reported in (2010) 8 SCC 701 (Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. Krishan Kumar Vij & anr.) ; AIR 1999 SC 838 (Selva Raj Vs. Lt. Governor of Island, Port Blair) and (2010) 6 GLR 573 (Haradhan Rishi Das Vs. State of Tripur a & Ors). On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submi tted that the petitioner having been allowed to hold only current charge of the higher post in addition to his own duties and responsibilities attached to the p ost of Project officer, he is not entitled to receive any pay and allowances for the period in question. In this connection, they have placed reliance on the pr ovisions of FR-49(C). I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the pa rties and the entire materials on record. FR-49(C) reads as follows :- FR. 49. The State Government may direct a Government servant to hold charge of one or more independent posts at one time in addition to the post he holds subst antively or in officiating capacity. In such cases his pay shall be regulated as follows :- (a) & & & & & &. (b) & & & & &.. (c) No additional pay shall be admissible to a Government servant who is dir ected to hold current charge of the routine duties of a higher post irrespective of the duration of the additional charge. From the above provisions, what is seen is that no additional pay shall be admissible to a Govt. servant, who is directed to hold the current charge of the routine duties of a higher post irrespective of the duration of the addition al charge. The issue is no-longer resintegra and has been decided by the Divisio n Bench of this Court in its decision reported in (2006) 4 GLT 553 (Deba Kanta S arma Vs. State of Assam & Ors), in which referring to the aforesaid provisions o f FR-49 and the earlier decision reported in (2004) 1 GLT 5 ( Golap Chandra Ch etia Vs. Assam Industrial Tribunal) held that an incumbent who is allowed to hol d current charge of the higher post in addition to his own duties, is not entitl ed to receive pay and allowances for the higher post. The decisions on which the learned counsel for the petitioners has place d reliance have not application to the case in hand. In Krishan Kumar (supra), i t was held that the promotees promoted under time bound promotion scheme are ent itled to receive pay and allowances attached to the promotional post. In that ca se, having regard to the facts and circumstances, delay of 8 years in approachin g the Court was also condoned. In Selva Raj (supra), the Apex Court held that the employee, who had wor ked in the higher post temporarily and in officiating basis, is entitled to sala ry attached to the higher post. Unlike the present case, in the said case, it wa s not a case of allowing the incumbent to hold current charge of the higher post in addition to normal duties he was given independent charge of the higher post . It was in such circumstances, the Apex Court directed for payment of salary at tached to the higher post. In Haradhan Rishi Das (supra), this Court having found that the petition er was asked to hold a higher post, held that the incumbent was entitled to the scale of pay attached to the said higher post. In none of the cases referred to above, the issue involved was not relat ing to current duty charge in addition to normal duties but was that of holding a higher post. That apart, when the aforesaid provision of FR-49(C) makes it abu ndantly clear that for holding current charge, no additional pay shall be admiss ible to a Govt. servant, the petitioner cannot claim salary for the higher post. This aspect of the matter has been discussed in detail in Deba Kanta Sarma’s ca se (supra). The Full Bench of this Court in its decision reported in (2006) 4 GLT 60 8 (Assm. Tombi Singh Vs. state of Manipur), held that the Govt. is entitled, as temporary measure to appoint an employee to officiate in two or more posts. On s uch contingency, the employee is not entitled to claim pay of the higher post un less the order speaks otherwise. Be that as it may, when the provision of FR-49( C) makes it clear that on holding of current duty charge in addition to one’s du ties and responsibilities, he is not entitled to receive salary of the higher po st, there is no question of directing the respondents to pay the petitioner sala ry in the higher post. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and con sequently the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.