WP(C) 4478/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. M.H. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. S.K. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. 2. All the three writ petitions having raised the same issue have been take n up for analogous hearing and are being disposed of by this common order. For a ready reference the prayer made in W.P.(C) No. 4477/2010 which is also virtuall y the prayer in the other two writ petitions is reproduced below : In the premises aforesaid, it is respectfully prayed that your Lordships would b e pleased to admit this petition, call for records and issue rule on the respond ents to show cause as to why appropriate writ of mandamus and/or any other appro priate writ, direction or order shall not be issued commanding upon the responde nts/authorities, particularly respondent no. 1 and 2 for regularizing the servic e of the petitioners as principals of the respective Higher Secondary Schools w. e.f. the respective dates of their such inchargeships(retrospectively) and/or al low all of them to officiate as Principal of the respective schools with regular scale of pay and allowances like the similarly situated cases as mentioned in A nnexure -2(a), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b), 4(a) & 4(b) and cause or causes being shown and upon hearing the parties be pleased to make the rule absolute by allowing petit ioners’ due claim for regularization of their service as Principal of the respec tive Higher Secondary Schools and/or allowing them to officiate with regular sca le of pay like the similarly situated cases covered by aforesaid annexures - 2(a ), 2(b), 3(b) & 3(c) series and/or pass any other order/orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper. 3. All the petitioners were allowed the current charge of the Princ ipal Incharge as per the provisions of F.R. 49(c ) in addition to their normal d uties. F.R. 49(c) provides as follows - (c) No additional pay shall be admissible to a Government servant who is directe d to hold current charge of the routine duties of a higher post irrespective of the duration of the additional charge. 4. Md. M. H. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is also the prayer of the petitioners for converting the particular s ervice under F.R. 49(a), although the fact of the matter is that the petitioners were allowed to hold the charge of the Principal under F.R. 49(c). F.R. 49 (a) reads as follows - (a) Where a Government servant is formally directed to hold full charge of the duties of a higher post or posts which is or are in the same office as his own a nd in the same cadre/line of promotion, in addition to his ordinary duties, he s hall be allowed the pay of the higher post or the highest post if he holds full charge of more than one post, in addition to ten percent of the presumptive pay of the additional post or posts, if the additional charge is held for a period e xceeding 39 days but not exceeding three months : Provided that the concurrence of the Finance Department shall be obtained for ma king such arrangement and for payment of the additional pay. 5. Mr. S. K. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department su bmits that the issue raised in the writ petitions is no longer res-intrega and h as been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in 2006 (4) GLT 553( Debakanta Sharma vs. State of Assam and Ors.) In the said deci sion same was the issue as has been raised in the present writ petitions. The Di vision Bench was dealing with the issue on the basis of the different views take n by two different courts. Upon threadbare discussions of the matter and dealing with the entire provisions of F.R. 49 and also referring to the earlier Divisio n Bench judgment of this Court it has been held that the petitioner involved in the said petition is not entitled to any benefits as he was holding only the cha rge of the headmaster. 6. The petitioners having accepted the assignment of the Principal Incharge under F.R. 49(c) while holding the substantive post cannot now turn aro und the same so as to claim the benefits under F.R. 49 (a). The orders by which they were allowed to hold the charge of Principal Incharge having specifically m entioned the provisions of F.R. 49 (c) and they having accepted the said positio n are not entitled to claim that their cases are required to be converted to tha t of F.R. 49 (a). 7. All the writ petitions are dismissed. Although Md. M.H. Barbhuiy a, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the Annexure - IV judgment and order dated 12.2.2009 passed in W.P.(C) No. 7669/2004 but the said judgment is of no help to the case of the petitioners, inasmuch as, in the order s concerning with which the said writ petition was filed there was no reference of F.R. 49 (c). That apart, the said judgment did not take note of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment. I am bound by the Division Bench judgment.