The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of an employee to the regular pay scale of a higher post for the period of additional charge, based on qualifications and uninterrupted discharge of duties, as well as the interpretation of Rule 103 of the Code.

S.K.Katriar and Kishore K.Mandal JJ.

1. The petitioner of CWJC No. 2644 of 1998 (Prafulla Ranjan Shrivastava V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors.) has preferred this appeal in terms of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, whereby the writ petition has been substantially dismissed, and has been partly allowed in terms of Rule 103 of the Bihar Service Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) . We shall go by description of the parties occurring in the writ petition.

2. The facts essential for disposal of the appeal are not in dispute and may be indicated briefly. The writ petitioner (the appellant herein) was appointed as an Assistant Engineer, and holds the following educational qualifications as indicated in para-3 of the writ petition:

(i) Passed the Examination of B.Sc. Engineering (Civil) from Bihar University.

(ii) Passed the Examination of two years Post-Graduate Diploma course in Town and Country Planning from the school of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi.

(iii) Passed the Examination of Diploma course in Urban Survey from the International Institute of Aerial and Earth Science, Nitherland.

(iv) Passed the Examination of L.L.B. from Magadh University; Bihar and is a Fellow member of the Institute of Town Planner, India.

He was duly appointed as an Assistant Engineer in Town and Country Planning Organisation, Local Self Government Department of the Government of Bihar, by Notification dated 1.12.1967 (Annexure-1). He was promoted to the post of Associate Planner by order dated 10.11.1976 (Annexure-2). He was promoted to the next higher post of Town Planner by order dated 11.11.1996 (Annexure-6). After the retirement of M.S. Ahmad, the previous officiating Chief Town Planner, the petitioner, being the seniormost Town Planner, was given additional charge of Chief Town Planner by Notification dated 8.2.1996 (Annexure-10). He assumed the charge as Chief Town Planner Town & Country Planning Organisation at Headquarter, Patna, vide charge report dated 8.2.1996 (Annexure-11). By order dated 16.4.1996 (Annexure-12), he was declared to be the drawing and disbursing officer in the capacity of Chief Town Planner and ultimately superannuated from the service of Bihar Government with effect from 31.1.1997, while functioning as Chief Town Planner.

2.1) The petitioner submitted his representation dated 17.3.1998 (Annexure-14), submitting therein that he may be given the regular pay scale of the Chief Town Planner with consequential benefits. The petitioner never received reply to the same leading to the writ petition, which has been allowed in part, and the petitioner has been given the benefit of officiating allowance in terms of Rule 103 of the Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to the regular pay scale admissible to Chief Town Planner with consequential reliefs. He relies on a number of reported judgments.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has supported the order of the learned writ court.

5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The qualifications for the post of Chief Town Planner are indicated in the resolution of 25.4.1972 (Annexure-4). The admitted position is that the petitioner was qualified to hold the post of Chief Town Planner on a substantive basis and was, after the retirement of M.S. Ahmad, the Senior-most Town Planner in the organization. It is equally the admitted position that by virtue of the Notification dated 8.2.1996 (Annexure-10), he discharged the duties of the office of the Chief Town Planner uninterruptedly from 8.2.1996 to 31.1.1997, that is, for a period of one year less one week. It is, equally the admitted position, and is indeed stated in the said Notification dated 8.2.1996 (Annexure-10), that the petitioner was given the charge of the office because he was the senior-most function