THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32800 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Machinist in the year 1991. Stating that he has been entrusted with the duties of Vocational Instructor, carrying the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 and that he has not been extended the benefit of that pay scale, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents. Through proceedings, dated 03.11.2010, the respondents rejected the request of the petitioner observing that his substantive appointment is against a vacancy in the post of Machinist and he cannot be granted the scale of pay of higher post. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same and claims the relief in the form of direction to the respondents to extend him the benefit of pay scale for the post of Vocational Instructor. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as Machinist initially in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 and that the same has since been revised to Rs.5000-8000. It is also stated that the petitioner was never asked to discharge the functions of Vocational Instructor. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. It is not in dispute that the appointment of the petitioner is only to the post of Machinist. He does not dispute the fact that he is being extended the pay scale attached to that post as revised from time to time. A claim is made by him to the effect that he is entrusted with the functions of Vocational Instructor, but he is not being paid the salary for that post. He has also drawn the analogy with some other employees. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have categorically stated that the petitioner was never entrusted with the duties of Vocational Instructor. The petitioner is not able to place any material to show that he was asked to discharge the functions of that post. Assuming that there was any direction or instruction from the superiors to discharge some functions of Vocational Instructor, the petitioner cannot derive any right out of it. If he is not inclined to discharge any other functions, he can simply make his stand clear. As long as the respondents have not issued any specific orders promoting or placing the petitioner against the post of Vocational Instructor, there is no question of granting the pay scale of that post to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:27.08.2011 kdl