JUDGMENT

Chakradhari Sharan,J. - It is a fundamental principle of service jurisprudence that the conditions of service of Government servants are governed by the rules or orders issued by the appropriate Government. In the absence of rules, the right of a government servant is to be determined on the basis of orders, which govern their service conditions. The Bihar Service Code, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') define, inter alia, the conditions under which salaries and other allowances (except T.A. and Pension) are earned by service under the State Government.

2. Keeping in mind the said legal principle and the provisions under the Code, the Court is required to examine legitimacy of the petitioner's claim of salary of a Class-III employee, while substantively holding a Class-IV post under the Government.

3. I have heard Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Archna Meenakshee, learned Government Pleader No.6, representing the State of Bihar.

4. It would be apt to take note of the facts first as pleaded in the writ application and in the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents.

5. It is the petitioner's case that pursuant to notices inviting applications for appointment against Class-IV posts in Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar, he had submitted his application and he was finally appointed by an order issued on 04.12.1981 by Chief Engineer (Irrigation), Dehri Camp, Patna. In 1990, he made an application seeking his promotion to Class-III post. He again submitted his representation for promotion in 1991. Subsequently, the Executive Engineer, Water Resource Department, Daudnagar came out with an office order, asking the petitioner to do khatayani work. It is the petitioner's case that khatayani work is performed by a Class-II employee and not by a Class-IV employee. It is petitioner's further case that since he was made to discharge such functions, which are ordinarily performed by a Class-III employee, he was entitled to salary admissible for a Class-III post. It is his further case that subsequently by letter dated 11.03.2010 issued by the Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department, Aurangabad Zone, Aurangabad, he was asked to perform the duty of Revenue Collection, which duty also he duly discharged. He again represented before the authorities claiming salary admissible to the said Class-III post agasinst which he was discharging his duties. Subsequent thereto, in 2013 when an incumbent to the post of Revenue Inspector was due to retire, the petitioner was asked to assume his charge by an office order dated 08.08.2012 issued by the Executive Engineer (Respondent No.5). The petitioner claims that he continued to work on the said post of Revenue Inspector till the date of his superannuation with effect from 30.08.2015. With the aforesaid plea, the petitioner claims that he is entitled for pay admissible to a Class-III employee under the State Government on the principles of equal pay for equal work.

6. Two counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents, one of which has been sworn by the Additional Chief Secretary, Water Resource Department, Government of Bihar. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner and some other employees were deputed from time to time to perform the duties of tax collection in accordance with Clause-4 of the resolution as contained in Memo No. 4000 dated 02.12.1993, wherein it was clearly mentioned that if some employees were literate and could issue 'receipts' then the Department may utilize their work performed by persons holding Class-III posts. It has been reiterated, however, that it was a stop gap arrangement in the interest of work and for that there was no provision for payment of extra emolument to the employees. It has further been stated that the staffing pattern of the Department was worked out and the cadre was re-structured from which it transpired that as against 355 Class-IV posts of Peon, the