IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8205 of 2010 SUDEB KUMAR MOOKHERJEE, S/O LATE SUDHIR KUMAR MUKHERJEE, RESIDENT OF 801, LEELABRATA APARTMENT, PHASE-2, NEAR ALPANA MARKET, PATLIPUTRA COLONY, P.S. PATLIPUTRA, DISTRICT- PATNA. … PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT (IN SHORT P.H.E.D.). 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY, MANAGEMENT CELL, PHED, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF CUM SPECIAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. .. RESPONDENTS. For the Petitioner: Mr. Arvind Kumar Tiwary, Advocate. For the State : M/s. A. Amanullah, GA-4 and Anuj Kumar, Asstt. Counsel to GA-4. ----------- 2. 09.03.2011 While disposing of the writ application of the petitioner, vide Annexure-6, this Court had noticed that the claim of the petitioner for higher salary for his ad-hoc promotion on the post of Assistant Engineer during the period from 19.4.1979 to 4.8.1981 was under consideration with the Department. The contention of the petitioner was also noticed that even after 4.8.1981 he continued against the post of Assistant Engineer on ad-hoc basis till he superannuated. However, this Court did not find any supporting document with the writ application in this regard. Therefore, the writ application was disposed of with liberty to the 2 petitioner to file a representation before the concerned authorities for claim of higher salary for subsequent period also. Petitioner filed representation which was considered and disposed of vide Annexure-1. The Principal Secretary while considering the case of the petitioner has noticed that in terms of Rule-103 of the Bihar Service Code, petitioner has been paid 20% of his basic salary for the period 19.4.1979 to 4.8.1981. He has noticed that after 4.8.1981 he was reverted back to his original post of Junior Engineer. Therefore, he has rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of salary for having continued on ad-hoc basis against the post of Assistant Engineer even after 4.8.1981. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are documents which show that the petitioner continued against the post of Assistant Engineer even after 4.8.1981 till the date of his superannuation. In support of said contention, he refers to certain documents which are annexed as Annexure-5 series, which show that time to time the petitioner was made in-charge of Technical Sub- division. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the post of in-charge of Technical Sub-division was a post equivalent to Assistant Engineer. 3 Therefore he should be treated as posted on ad-hoc basis against a post of Assistant Engineer. This Court is unable to accept said contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Merely making him in-charge, in absence of any Assistant Engineer or a Competent Officer, of the Sub-division for the time being does not amount to his promotion on ad-hoc basis or in officiating capacity against a higher post of Assistant Engineer. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order, Annexure- 1.The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. Ibrar/- (J. N. Singh, J.)