WP(C) 2401/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The petitioners are principally aggrieved by the denial of their entitlements attached to the posts in which they are officiating in administrat ive exigencies. I have heard Mr. MH Rajbarbhuiya, learned counsel for the petiti oners and Mr. M Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department for the of ficial respondents. To better comprehend the petitioners’ pleaded case, the relevant facts pertaining to their service profiles and having a bearing on the issue ar e set out in the table hereinbelow: - Sl. Nos. Name of the Petitioner Name of the Institution substant ive post Higher post in which the petitioner is officiating Date of officiation 1. Mrinal Kanti Roy (petitioner No. 1) MMMC Girls’ HS School, Karimganj Senior Most Subject Teacher Principal, I/c, (Following the retirement of th e regular Principal) 31.12.2005 2. Sri Aunp Kumar Roy (Petitioner No. 2) Swami Birajananda Vidyaniketan H S Karimganj Subject Teacher Principal, I/c (Following the retirement of the regular Principal) 01.02.2007 3. Sri Bibhas Biswas Bipin Pal Vidyaniketan (HS School), Karimganj Assistant Teacher Principal, I/c (Following the retirement of the regular Principal) 25.04.2007 The common grievance of the petitioners is that though, in view of the arrangement indicated hereinabove, they are in full charge of the affairs relating to the higher posts, they have been denied the pay allowances relatabl e thereto. The petitioners have cited the instances, where under identical arra ngements, the incumbents have been accorded regular service entitlements attache d to the higher posts. As repeated representations by them before the concerned departmental authorities have not yielded any result, they are before this Cour t for redress. No counter has been filed by the respondents. Mr. Rajbarbhuiyan has emphatically urged that as the petitioners are discharging whole time duties associated with the higher posts, they are, i n law, entitled to pay and allowances attached thereto and, therefore, the denia l thereof to them is, per se, arbitrary, unfair and unjust. Referring to the ca ses, where similarly situated incumbents have been favoured with the service ben efits relatable to the higher post they hold, the learned counsel for the petiti oners has alleged discrimination. To buttress his argument, Mr. Rajbarbhuiyan, has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Judhistir Mohanty Vs. S tate of Orissa & Ors., (1996)10 SCC 531. Mr. Datta, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Assam , in reply has urged that as the petitioners have only been assigned temporary c harge of the higher posts, their claim for regular service benefits correspondin g thereto, is misconceived and the petition is, thus, liable to be dismissed. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival pleadings and the arguments advanced. That the petitioners are discharging their duties i n higher posts as indicated in the table hereinabove, is not refuted. The docum ents submitted by the petitioners, more particularly, the orders dated 30.12.200 5 (Annexure 1(a)), 29.01.2007 (Annexure 2(a)) and 24.04.2007 (Annexure 3(a)), un ambiguously demonstrate that petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 are functioning as Princ ipal, In-charge in their respective institutions and amongst others are authoriz ed to conduct official transactions as drawing and disbursing authorities. The respondents have not disputed that the arrangement, whereunder the petitioners h ave been made to function as In-charge, Principal of the schools, has continued over the years unabated. The Apex Court in Judhistir Mohanty Vs State of Orissa and ors. (Supra), while dealing with the similar issue ruled as follows: - It is a settled position that if the Government, for want of candidate, directs an officer in the lower cadre to perform the duties of the post in the higher c adre, during that period, necessarily, the incumbent would be entitled to the pa yment of the salary attached to the post, if the incumbent had performed the dut ies in the post. Similarly, where the officer concerned is on promotion from lo wer cadre to the higher cadre, though on ad-hoc or even temporary basis, the inc umbent would be entitled to the payment of the salary attached thereto for the p eriod of his discharging the duty in that post Having regard to the length of the period for which the petition ers are in position in the higher posts as indicated hereinabove, and in absence of any reservation to the quality of services rendered by them, I am of the opi nion that they are entitled to the salary attached to the higher posts together with ancillary allowances. The State being a model employer cannot be permitted in the sing ular facts and circumstances of the case to deny them their dues allowable vis-a -vis the higher posts, which they hold after extracting their services in connec tion therewith. In the above view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The S tate respondents are hereby directed to quantify the petitioners’ entitlements f or the services rendered by them in the higher posts as above. As the petitione rs are waiting in expectation, the exercise indicated hereinabove, should be ini tiated and completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receip t of the certified copy of this order. It is made clear that this determination should not be construed to be a direction to decide the petitioners’ claim for regularization of their services in the posts. No costs.