JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard through Video Conferencing.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court with multiple prayers; however, learned counsel for the petitioner confines his argument only on the point that this petitioner should get the difference of salary from 27.12.2003 to 29.07.2008 when he was working as in-charge Executive Engineer and further the difference of salary from 29.07.2008 till date since he has been made in-charge Superintending Engineer.

3. Mr. Ashim Kumar Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer on 19.01.1987. Thereafter, in the year 1995 he was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer. Subsequently, pursuant to the notification as contained in Memo No. 10295 dated 27.12.2003; the petitioner has been given the charge of Executive Engineer from the date of notification; however, his substantive post was of Assistant Engineer.

Subsequently, pursuant to the notification dated 29.07.2008; the petitioner was given in-charge posting of Superintending Engineer. Here also the pay scale of the petitioner remains the same that of Assistant Engineer. Finally, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer in the year 2013 (Annexure-4).

Mr. Sahani further submits that this petitioner along with others earlier moved before this Court with the grievance that they were not given promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. He further submits that in the instant case the petitioner confines his argument only on the point that this petitioner should get the difference of salary from 27.12.2003 to 29.07.2008 when he was working as in-charge Executive Engineer and likewise the petitioner is also entitled for the difference of salary from 29.07.2008 till date since he has been made in-charge Superintending Engineer.

He contended that now the law is well settled; if any employee is working on any post, may not be on substantive posting, but he is entitled for the difference of salary if the in-charge post is not an ad hoc arrangement and the petitioner worked from 2003 to 2008 as Executive Engineer and thereafter; he is working as an in-charge Superintending Engineer till date; so it cannot be said to be an stop gap arrangement.

He relied upon the following judgments:

1. 2013 (4) SCC 152

2. 2013 (4) JLJR 306

3. 2013 (4) JLJR 308

4. W.P. (S) No. 1661 of 2010

He lastly submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if it is not a stop-gap arrangement then the employee is entitled for difference of salary of the in-charge post.

4. Mr. Raunak Sahay, learned counsel for the respondent State opposed the prayer of the petitioner and draws attention of this Court towards Annexure 2 which is the notification dated 27.12.2003 and submits that in the very first line it has been indicated that the employee will get the salary of his substantive post itself and will not get the salary of in-charge post and if the petitioner was not interested then he should have not joined the post.

He further relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Ramakant Shripad Sinai Advalpalkar vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 1991 SC 1145 in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held at Para 6 as under:

“6. The third contention is that appellant's ‘in-charge’ arrangements in the higher post had continued for so long a period that a determination of equivalence on the basis of his lower substantive post would become arbitrary. This contention ignores the fact that an ‘in-charge’ arrangement is not a recognition of or is necessarily based on seniority and that, therefore, no rights, equities or expectations could be built upon it. The third contention is also unmeritorious.”

Relying upon the aforesaid ruling, learned counsel submits that there is no error in the action of the respondents since the petitioner was on in-charge post, as such he was not entitled for difference of salary.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties it appears that the petitioner along with others earlie