The main legal point established in the judgment is that a government servant is entitled to additional pay for officiating in multiple posts, as per Rule 103 and Note 4 of the Bihar Service Code, 1952, up to a limit of 20% of the pay of the officiating post.

ORDER

1. LEAVE GRANTED.

2. THE QUESTION RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL PAY FOR OFFICIATING IN THE TWO POSTS OF PRINCIPAL AND MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT WHILE HE WAS HOLDING THE POST OF A PROFESSOR IN PATLIPUTRA MEDICAL COLLEGE, DHANBAD.

3. THE NOTIFICATION UNDER WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO DISCHARGE ADDITIONAL DUTIES AS PRINCIPAL, STATED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS APPOINTED IN PLACE OF THE ERSTWHILE PRINCIPAL WHO HAD RETIRED AND THAT THE APPELLANT WAS TO OFFICIATE AS PRINCIPAL ON THE VACANT POST IN HIS OWN PAY SCALE. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THIS ARRANGEMENT WAS WHOLLY TEMPORARY AND WOULD BE AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATED AFTER THE POSTING OF THE REGULAR PRINCIPAL. ALTHOUGH THE NOTIFICATION IS DATED 14-2-1997, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE APPELLANT IN FACT TOOK OVER CHARGE AS PRINCIPAL FROM 1-2-1997 IMMEDIATELY UPON THE RETIREMENT OF THE PREVIOUS PRINCIPAL. THE SECOND NOTIFICATION ISSUED ON 26-121997 WAS COUCHED IN SIMILAR LANGUAGE AND THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF THE SUPERINTENDENT WHO HAD RETIRED ON 30-11-1997. HERE TOO, THE APPELLANT TOOK OVER THE CHARGE OF THE POST OF SUPERINTENDENT W.E.F. 1-12-1997.

4. THE APPELLANT RETIRED ON 30-9-2000. HE CLAIMED ADDITIONAL PAY FOR THE PERIOD HE HAD OFFICIATED IN THE POST OF PRINCIPAL AND MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT DURING WHICH PERIOD THE APPELLANT WAS OFFICIATING EITHER AS THE PRINCIPAL OR SUPERINTENDENT OR IN BOTH THE AFORESAID CAPACITIES FROM 1-2-1997 TO 30-9-2000. THE PERIOD DURING WHICH HE DISCHARGED THE AFORESAID DUTIES WHILE HE WAS OFFICIATING IN EITHER ONE OR BOTH OF THESE CAPACITIES NEED NOT DETAIN US BECAUSE THE APPELLANT IS NOT CLAIMING THAT HE SHOULD BE PAID ADDITIONAL PAY TWICE FOR THE PERIOD WHEN HE WAS DISCHARGING THE ADDITIONAL DUTIES OF BOTH POSTS.

5. THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON RULE 103 OF THE BIHAR SERVICE CODE, 1952, THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF WHICH PROVIDES:

"THE PAY OF A GOVERNMENT SERVANT APPOINTED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO HOLD SUBSTANTIVELY, AS A TEMPORARY MEASURE, OR TO OFFICIATE IN TWO OR MORE INDEPENDENT POSTS AT ONE TIME SHALL BE REGULATED AS FOLLOWS:

(B) FOR EACH OTHER POST HE MAY DRAW SUCH REASONABLE PAY, IN NO CASE EXCEEDING HALF THE PRESUMPTIVE PAY (EXCLUDING OVERSEAS PAY) OF THE POST, AS THE STATE GOVERNMENT MAY FIX."

6. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON NOTE 4 TO THE AFORESAID RULES WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:

"THE EXTRA REMUNERATION ADMISSIBLE UNDER CLAUSE (B) OF THIS RULE SHOULD NOT ORDINARILY EXCEED 20 PER CENT OF THE PRESUMPTIVE PAY OF THE POST WHOSE DUTIES THE GOVERNMENT SERVANT IS PERFORMING."

7. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT IT IS CLEAR FROM THIS RULE THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO DRAW AN ADDITIONAL PAY CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF THE PAY WHICH WAS PRESUMPTIVELY PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF THE POSTS IN WHICH HE WAS OFFICIATING SUBJECT TO THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER NOTE 4.

8. THE APPELLANTS REPRESENTATION TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT WAS, HOWEVER, REJECTED. HE FILED A WRIT PETITION WHICH WAS DISPOSED OF BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE WHICH APPEARED TO UPHOLD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT SAYS:

"HE IS ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL PAY AS ENVISAGED IN RULE 130 OF THE BIHAR SERVICE CODE WHICH HAS PASSED DIRECTION FOR PAYMENT OF THE SAME EITHER THE DUES BETWEEN HIS PAY AND PAY OF THE PRINCIPAL AND SUPERINTENDENT OF THE MEDICAL COLLEGE OR 20% OF ADDITIONAL SUBSTANTIVE PAY, WHICHEVER IS LESS, WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT/PRODUCTION OF A COPY OF THIS ORDER".

9. SINCE THE RULE QUOTED WAS INCORRECT AND SINCE THE DIRECTION WAS SOMEWHAT AMBIGUOUS THE APPELLANT FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION OF THE NUMBER OF THE RULE AND FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE WHICH, HE SAID, SHOULD HAVE READ:

"FOR PAYMENT OF 20% OF SUBSTANTIVE PAY SCALE OF POST OF PROFESSOR OR OF PRINCIPAL, WHICHEVER PAY SCALE IS LESS".

10. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE PAY SCALE OF A PROFESSOR AND THE PRINCIPAL WAS THE SAME. THE PRAYER, THEREFORE, WAS THAT THE