By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was working as Passenger Tax Officer in the Transport Department. He was directed to officiate on the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer since 7.8.1996 and since then, he has been discharging duty as A.R.T.O. However, by order dated 28.5.1999, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer. The submission of the petitioner’s counsel is that the petitioner has not been paid salary of the post of A.R.T.O. for the period from 7.8.1996 to 28.5.1999. The representation submitted by him has been rejected by the impugned order dated August 26, 2002, passed by the Transport Commissioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the provisions contained in Para 49 Chapter VI of the Financial Hand Book Vol. II (Parts II to IV) and submitted that since the petitioner had discharged duty on the higher post of A.R.T.O. w.e.f. 7.8.1996 to 28.5.1999, he is entitled for payment of higher pay scale. He further submits that the several persons who had discharged duty on the post of Assistant Regional Transport Officer like S/Shri Rakesh Singh, Raj Kishor Trivedi, Daroga Singh, Shyam Nath Ram and others who were directed to officiate on the post of ARTO, have been given salary of the said post. Specific pleading has been made in para 7 of the writ petition. The averments contained in para 7 of the writ petition with regard to payment of higher pay-scale to the similarly situated officers have not been category denied while filing the counter affidavit.

3. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

4. From the plain reading of the provisions contained in Para 49 of Chapter VI of Financial Hand Book, Vol. II (Parts II to IV), it is evident that a government servant who is formally appointed to hold full charge of the duties of a higher post in the same office as his own and in the same cadre/line of promotion, in addition to his ordinary duties, shall be paid the pay admissible to him, if he was appointed to officiate in the higher post, unless his officiating pay is reduced under Rule 35 but no additional pay shall be allowed for performing the duties of a lower post. The provisions contained in Rule 49 of the Financial Hand Book seem to provide that a government servant who officiates on the higher post shall be entitled for payment of pay-scale admissible to such higher post. For convenience, Para 49 of Chapter VI of the Financial Hand Book, Vol. II (Parts II to IV) is reproduced as under :

”CHAPTER VI-COMBINATION OF APPOINTMENTS

49. The Government may appoint a Government servant already holding a post in a substantive or officiating capacity to officiate, as a temporary measure, in one or more of other independent posts at one time under the State Government. In such cases, his pay is regulated as follows :

(i) where a Government servant is formally appointed to hold full charge of the duties of a higher post in the same office as his own and in the same cadre/line of promotion, in addition to his ordinary duties, he shall be allowed the pay admissible to him, if he were appointed to officiate in the higher post, unless his officiating pay is reduced under Rule 35 but no additional pay shall be allowed for performing the duties of a lower post.

(ii) where a Government servant is formally appointed to hold dual charge of two posts in the same cadre in the same office carrying identical scales of pay, no additional pay shall be admissible irrespective of the period of dual charge :

Provided that if the Government servant is appointed to an additional post which carries special pay, he shall be allowed such special pay.

(iii) where a Government servant is formally appointed to hold charge of another post or posts which is or are not in the same office, or which, though in the same office, is