IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1406 of 2005 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 2083/2004) 01. The State Of Bihar 02. The Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna ….. Respondents/Appellants Versus Sheo Shankar Singh, son of Late Lallu Singh, resident of J/76, P.C. Colony, Kankarbagh, Patna …. Petitioner/Respondent ---------------------------------- 06. 23.08.2011 This L.P.A. has been filed against the order dated 19.01.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 2083 of 2004, wherein it has been observed that if a person has been made to discharge his duty and has performed his duty from a vacant sanctioned post for a long period till the date of his superannuation, the State cannot deny the benefit and salary of the aforesaid post to the petitioner. It has accordingly been directed that the writ petitioner be paid the salary of Excise Superintendent on which post he has officiated rather than in his own pay-scale as Excise Inspector. Learned counsel for the Appellant State refers to letter dated 16.12.1999 (Annexure-3 of the writ petition) by which the respondent/petitioner had been directed to perform the duties on the post of Excise Superintendent, said to be on a stopgap arrangement basis. He therefore submits that where 2 a person is asked to work on a higher post only on a temporary basis, he would not be entitled to the higher salary of such post, more so when the rules do not so provide. As such the respondent/petitioner would continue to be eligible only for the pay as Excise Inspector being his own pay-scale. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, relies on several decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court, whereby the present issue has already been decided in principle, holding that where a person is made to officiate on a higher post, he would be entitled to the salary of such higher post. Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions reported in AIR 1999 SC 838 and 2004 (1) PLJR 34. On perusal of the decisions relied upon, it would appear that the issue indeed stands concluded. It would be fruitful to extract the observation of the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision reported in 1999 SC 838 (Selva Raj Versus Lt. Governor of Island, Port Blair and Others) at paragraph-3 as follows:- “3. ….. Consequently, on the principle of quantum merit the respondents authorities should have paid the appellant as per the emoluments available in the aforesaid higher pay scale during the time he 3 actually worked on the said post of Secretary (Scouts) though in an officiating capacity and not as a regular promotee. This limited relief is required to be given to the appellant only on this ground.” In view of the above, as also the fact that the respondent/petitioner has discharged his duty as Excise Superintendent for about two years and nine months which period cannot also be treated as a mere stopgap arrangement, we find no ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The L.P.A. is accordingly dismissed. P.K. (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Vikash Jain, J.)