GITESH RANJAN BHATTACHARJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE Court : In this writ petition the petitioner has inter alia prayed for orders confirming him as Head Clerk/chief Clerk/section-in-Charge and fitment in the grade, pay and scale and other benefits attached to the post which was enjoyed by the Ex-Head Clerk of WPO Department with effect from 15th January, 1982. The petitioner joined as temporary clerk in Accounts Department of M/s. Hooghly Docking and Engineering Co. Ltd. , Salkia, Howrah and ultimately he was confirmed as a Clerk in or around 1965. The said M/s. Hooghly Docking 84 Engineering Co. Ltd. , became an undertaking of the Central Government and on 9. 7. 1984 a new Government Company named Hooghly Dock and Port Engineers Ltd. was formed. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said Government Company, the respondent no. 1 is a State and/or Authority under Article 12 of the Constitution being fully controlled and financed by the Central Government. It is the contention of the petitioner that on 6th June, 1980 the General Manager, (Wandr) of the M/s. Hooghly Docking and Engineering Co. Ltd. issued an office order to the effect that under the instruction of the General Manager, dated the 2nd February, 1975, Shri B. K. Chakraborty (ex-Head Clerk) was deputed with the assistance of the petitioner for collection of pay packets from the Cash Department on the pay day for disbursement to all members of the Junior Staff working under the General Manager (Wandr) Division. The further contention of the petitioner is that subsequently the service of Sri B. K. Chakraborty was extended for one year in order to train up a person from the clerical staff of WPO who would pick up the job of Head Clerk and assume charge of the said post on superannuation of Sri B. K. Chakraborty. It is also the case of the petitioner that the said Shri B. K. Chakraborty, Head Clerk, WPO was superannuated on 14th January, 1982 and his charge and responsibilities were handed over to the petitioner under the direction of the respondent No. 4. It is stated in the writ petition that at the time of handing over the charge by said Shri B. K. Chakraborty, Head Clerk to the petitioner the respondent no. It is stated in the writ petition that at the time of handing over the charge by said Shri B. K. Chakraborty, Head Clerk to the petitioner the respondent no. 4, the then Manager (Works) assured the petitioner verbally that he would take necessary steps for confirmation of the petitioner's service with effect from the 15th January, 1982 as Head Clerk, WPO and also for his fitment to the grade enjoyed by Stan B. K. Chakraborty, the Ex-Head Clerk of WPO. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that said Shri B. K Chakraborty, Ex-Head Clerk, WPO retired in the scale of pay-Rs. 300-20-500-EB-600 with Bengal Chamber of Commerce DA (Second Staff Cadre ). The petitioner made an application on the 24th January, 1983 to the then Manager (Works) for confirmation of the petitioner's service as Head Clerk, WPO and ac stated in paragraph-9 of the writ petition, the Manager (Works) who is the present respondent No. 4 also made endorsements on the body of the petitioner's application strongly recommending for confirmation of the petitioner in the said post of Head Clerk, WPO, but the then General Manager declined to confirm the petitioner and threatened reversion. Then on 13th July, 1983 the Manager (Personnel) issued a Memo transferring one Shri S. K. Biswas, Chief Clerk (Ship Yard as Chief Clerk, WPO. The petitioner's case is that this was done to dislodge the petitioner from the post of Chief Clerk/head Clerk/section-in-Charge by importing Shri S. K. Biswas in his place although the petitioner had been working in that post since 15th January, 1982 without any break under verbal instruction of the respondent no. 4 who was the then Manager (Works ). According to the petitioner's case at his behest the Secretary of the Employees' Union took up the matter with the authority concerned so that the petitioner might not be dislodged from his position of Chief Clerk/head Clerk/section-in-Charge and the authority concerned ultimately withdrew the Memo of transfer of Shri S. K. Biswas as Chief Clerk, WPO. On 9th January, 1984 a new designation namely Senior Clerk was introduced by the Management in between Clerk and Chief Clerk/section-in-Charge and the petitioner was re-designated as Senior Clerk along with 60/65 other clerical staff with effect from the 1st February, 1984. On 14th August, 1984 the petitioner made an application to the respondent no. On 9th January, 1984 a new designation namely Senior Clerk was introduced by the Management in between Clerk and Chief Clerk/section-in-Charge and the petitioner was re-designated as Senior Clerk along with 60/65 other clerical staff with effect from the 1st February, 1984. On 14th August, 1984 the petitioner made an application to the respondent no. 3 praying for fitment to the pay scale of Ex-Head Clerk, Shri B. K. Chakraborty with effect from 15th January, 1982 on the ground that the petitioner had been working in the place of Shin Chakraborty with effect from the date of his superannuation. After receiving the said letter Annexure-E to the writ petition the then General Manager, Shri S. R. Chanda issued to the petitioner Memo No. PO/930 dated the 18th August, 1984 Annexure-F to the writ petition inter alia warning him not to write such letter in future failing which severe disciplinary action would be taken including removal from the present post in Works Planning Office. The petitioner then brought the matter to the notice of the Secretary of the Employee's Union and also wrote a letter again to the General Manager (Annexure-H to the writ petition) requesting him to do justice to the petitioner and to withdraw the said warning letter. Again, on 8-10. 85 and on 19. 12. 85 the petitioner made representations to the Deputy General Manager, the respondent no. 4 (Annexure-I collectively) claiming office order for Confirmation of the petitioner as Head Clerk/chief Clerk/section-in-Charge with effect from 15th January, 1982. Then several other representations were also made to several places but to no effect and ultimately the petitioner has moved this writ petition. In paragraphs 28 and 30 of the wait petition the petitioner has enumerated the jobs of Head Clerk which he has been performing since the retirement of the ex-Head Clerk, Sri B. K. Chakraborty. ( 3 ) IN the affidavit-in-opposition the respondents have however denied that at the time of superannuation of Shri B. K. Chakraborty, ex-Head Clerk, the petitioner took charge and responsibility of the post of Head Clerk from said Shri Chakraborty or that there was any direction in that behalf by the respondent No. 4. ( 3 ) IN the affidavit-in-opposition the respondents have however denied that at the time of superannuation of Shri B. K. Chakraborty, ex-Head Clerk, the petitioner took charge and responsibility of the post of Head Clerk from said Shri Chakraborty or that there was any direction in that behalf by the respondent No. 4. It is also denied that the petitioner worked as Head Clerk in W. P. O. The respondents' case is that in 1983 the petitioner was working as Grade-I Clerk and that promotions are made on the basis of recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee since the respondent no. 1 was formed a Government Company. It is the further case of the respondents that the petitioner was promoted as Senior Clerk in Grade 'b' with effect from February 1, 1984 and that thereafter the Departmental Promotion Committee did not recommend his name and as such his promotion could not be considered and in other departments of the Company there are senior clerks who are senior to the writ petitioner and without considering their promotion the petitioner cannot be promoted and further that promotion is not granted in respect of seniority in a department and rather it is considered in respect of the entire organisation for a particular position. It is the contention of the respondents that the job done by the petitioner is assigned to him as Senior Clerk Grade 'b'. In paragraph 41 of the writ petition the petitioner contended that on several occasions in December 1982 and July 1983 the Management adopted a pick and choose policy and promoted a good number of clerks without any interview for the selection and promotion from clerk to Head Clerk/chief Clerk/section-in-Charge and he has also mentioned a good number of specific instances in that behalf. As against that, it is stated in paragraph-34 of the affidavit in-opposition that such promotions were made by the erstwhile Company and not by the present Government Company and even assuming that such pick and choose policy was adopted at that time the petitioner has no remedy in a writ petition against a Company which was not a State. As against that, it is stated in paragraph-34 of the affidavit in-opposition that such promotions were made by the erstwhile Company and not by the present Government Company and even assuming that such pick and choose policy was adopted at that time the petitioner has no remedy in a writ petition against a Company which was not a State. In paragraph 37 of the affidavit-in-opposition it is stated that since the post of Head Clerk in the WPO Department is vacant the Departmental Promotion Committee, if they think fit would recommend for the promotion of any employee who would be found suitable by the committee for such post of Head Clerk. ( 4 ) ANNEXURE-Y to the affidavit-in-reply is a recommendation dated the 4th May, 1981 by Manager (Works) for extension of service of Shri B. K. Chakraborty, Head Clerk, WPO for one year. It is stated in that recommendation that such extension would help in training up his successor and that he was doing quite useful and important job for the concerned department and he should be replaced by a man who would first pick up his job during his extension. Annexure-B to the writ petition is the order of extension dated the 30th June, 1981 of service of Shri Chakraborty, Head Clerk, WPO and this extension was granted until further notice. Shri Chakraborty, as we have already noticed, was superannuated on the 14th January, 1982. The aforesaid two documents Annexure-Y to the affidavit-in-reply and Annexure-B to the writ petition lend credence and support to the petitioner's case to a considerable extent that he was the senior most Clerk in the WPO Department at the time of superannuation of Shri Chakraborty and he took charge of the post of the Head Clerk, WPO on the retirement of Shri Chakraborty. It is also the contention of the petitioner that he took such charge under the direction of the respondent no. 4. There are also specific avernments in the writ petition that the respondent no. 4 who was the Manager (Works) at the relevant time recommended for confirmation of the petitioner in the post of Head Clerk, WPO and he was discharging the duties of such Head Clerk under the direction of the respondent No. 4. 4. There are also specific avernments in the writ petition that the respondent no. 4 who was the Manager (Works) at the relevant time recommended for confirmation of the petitioner in the post of Head Clerk, WPO and he was discharging the duties of such Head Clerk under the direction of the respondent No. 4. Inspire of such specific avernments relating to the respondent No. 4 the affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondents has been affirmed by the respondent No. 3 on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. The respondent No. 4 has not affirmed any affidavit to deny the specific averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition concerning the respondent No. 4. Annexure-C to the writ petition is an application dated 24-1-83 addressed to the Manager (Works) which post at the relevant time was being occupied by the present respondent No. 4. In that application it has been stated by the petitioner that under the clear instruction of the Manager (works) for more than l year the petitioner has been shouldering the entire charge and responsibility of Head Clerk, WPO and also part responsibility of Shri D. Roy Chowdhury and the petitioner asked for regularisation in the matter. This letter would also indicate that the claim of the petitioner was not an after thought and only a year after the retirement of the ex-Head Clerk, Shri Chakraborty, the petitioner in writing attracted the attention of the appropriate authority for necessary relief clearly asserting that he had been discharging the entire responsibility of Head Clerk, WPO under the instruction of the Manager (Works ). In paragraph-3 of the affidavit-in-reply the petitioner has also reproduced the recommendation of the then Manager (Works) to the General Manager to the effect that after the retirement of Shri Chakraborty, Head Clerk, WPO the petitioner has been looking after the entire clerical job and doing the work of the Head Clerk to the best satisfaction of the recommending authority. The recommending authority also requested the General Manager for approval of the proposal of regularisation of the petitioner in the post of Section-in-Charge. From the said paragraph of the affidavit-in-reply, it however appears that on 25. 2. The recommending authority also requested the General Manager for approval of the proposal of regularisation of the petitioner in the post of Section-in-Charge. From the said paragraph of the affidavit-in-reply, it however appears that on 25. 2. 1983 by a written endorsement the General Manager tuned down the recommendation of the Manager (Works) recording that the petitioner had been promoted from Grade-II to Grade-I recently on his recommendation against the wish of 'e. D and self' and so the question of his promotion to the post of Head Clerk/section-in-Charge did not arise at all. The General Manager further wrote to the Manager (Works) therein that if the latter were so keen to have a Head Clerk he (GM) would send one Section-in-Charge to his department and the petitioner might be given back his old job or transferred to some other job. The substance of the aforesaid recommendation of the Manager (Works) and of the rejection of the recommendation by the General Manager has been specifically averred in the writ petition but there has not been any specific denial of the same on the part of the respondents nor have the respondents produced the original records to show that the averments made by the writ petitioner in that respect are not correct. ( 5 ) IT is therefore evident from what has been discussed above that since the retirement of the Head Clerk, Shri Chakraborty the petitioner was shouldering the entire responsibility of the post of the Head Clerk in the concerned department and this he was doing under the direction of the Manager (Works) and that the latter also very strongly and emphatically recommended to the General Manager for the regularisation of the petitioner in the post of Head Clerk/ Section-in-Charge. The endorsement of the General Manager is to the effect that the petitioner might be given back his old job or transferred to some other job as noted above also clearly indicates that the General Manager accepted the position that the petitioner was discharging the function and responsibility of the Head-Clerk/section-in-Charge and this he was doing under the direction of the Manager (Works ). It also appears that thereafter by an order dated the 13th July, 1983 one Shri S. K. Biswas, Chief Clerk, Ship Yard was transferred as Chief Clerk, WPO. It also appears that thereafter by an order dated the 13th July, 1983 one Shri S. K. Biswas, Chief Clerk, Ship Yard was transferred as Chief Clerk, WPO. It was resented by the petitioner that transfer of Shri S. K. Biswas as Chief Clerk, WPO would dislodge the petitioner form the responsibility which be was discharging as Chief Clerk/head Clerk/section-in-Charge WPO and the petitioner took up the matter with the Employees' Union and the Union representative in turn took up the matter with the Authority concerned and the Authority concerned ultimately cancelled the order of transfer of Shri S. K. Biswas by the Office Order dated the 14th July, 1983 Annexure-C-l to the writ petition. I have already mentioned drat the petitioner in paragraphs 28 and 30 of the writ petition has enumerated the jobs of Head Clerk which he has been performing since the retirement of the ex-Head Clerk, Shri Chakraborty and it is not the case of the respondents that these jobs are not the jobs of Head Clerk/chief Clerk/section-in-Charge WPO or that these jobs are being performed by any person in the WPO other than the petitioner. It is also an admitted case that the post of the Head Clerk/chief Clerk/section-in-Charge of WPO has not yet been formally filled up by appointment of any incumbent and this also lends further support to the petitioner's case that he has been discharging the function of the Head Clerk/chief Clerk/section-in-Charge WPO since the retirement of the then Head Clerk Shri Chakraborty. The fact that the petitioner was given an upgraded scale with effect from 1st February, 1984 by way of promotion to a newly designated post of Senior Clerk can not be an answer to the claim of the petitioner for regularisation or formal appointment in the post of Head Clerk/chief Clerk/section-in-Charge if as a matter of fact the petitioner, as claimed, has been discharging the higher responsibility of the post of Head Clerk/chief Clerk/section-in-Charge inspire of his being re-designated as Senior Clerk which is obviously a post lower in rank than the post of Head Clerk/chief Clerk/section-in-Charge. ( 6 ) BY a representation dated the 14th August 1984, Annexure-E addressed to the General Manager the petitioner appealed to the concerned Authority for recognizing his services since the retirement of Shri Chakraborty by giving him the post of Head Clerk/chief Clerk. ( 6 ) BY a representation dated the 14th August 1984, Annexure-E addressed to the General Manager the petitioner appealed to the concerned Authority for recognizing his services since the retirement of Shri Chakraborty by giving him the post of Head Clerk/chief Clerk. In that representation the petitioner categorically stated that on the retirement of Shri Chakraborty, Head Clerk, WPO on 14-1-82 the petitioner was entrusted with his jobs and responsibilities and the petitioner-has been doing the said jobs and shouldering the responsibilities since then to the entire satisfaction of the superiors. In reply to that representation the General Manager conveyed a warning to him by a communication dated the 18th August, 1984 which is Annexure-F to the writ petition without conceding to the prayer of the petitioner. In that communication the General Manager noted that the petitioner had been making this sort of appeal for upgradation to post of Head Clerk umpteen times almost at intervals of 3 to 4 months and it was further stated therein that the petitioner had succeeded in getting up-gradation and special increments in the past by his constant nagging with his departmental officers and on two occasions the petitioner was also inter-viewed for the post of an officer and on both occasions he had failed miserably and inspite of that the petitioner was rewarded with two more upgradations recently within a span of 14 months due to oversight. It is further stated in the said communication that since the petitioner's efficiency and performance was no more than an average clerk even after upgradation to the post of Senior Clerk there was no or very little prospect of his ever being considered for further upgradation unless there were marked improvement to justify his present grade. The petitioner was administered a recorded warning by that communication not to write such letter in future failing which severe disciplinary action would be taken including removal from his present post in WPO. It is to be noted that in this communication the General Manager does not contradict the specific averment made by the petitioner in his representation that since retirement of the ex-Head Clerk, Shri Chakraborty on 14. 1. 82 he has boon performing and shouldering the jobs and responsibilities of Head Clerk as has been entrusted to him. It is to be noted that in this communication the General Manager does not contradict the specific averment made by the petitioner in his representation that since retirement of the ex-Head Clerk, Shri Chakraborty on 14. 1. 82 he has boon performing and shouldering the jobs and responsibilities of Head Clerk as has been entrusted to him. In the circumstances, and in view of the other facts and circumstances already discussed it has to be held that the petitioner has been discharging the functions and responsibilities of the Head Clerk/chief Clerk/section-in-Charge, WPO since retirement of the then Head Clerk, Shri Chakraborty with effect from 15. 1. 82. ( 7 ) THE aforesaid warning letter of the General Manager dated the 18th August, 1984, Annexure-F also makes surprising revelations. It is by no means a creditable performance for any administration to say that its employee has succeeded in getting upgradation and special increments by mere nagging with his departmental officers and was also rewarded with two more upgadations due to oversight although he failed miserably in the interview. It has also to be noticed that not only it was not denied in the said warning letter that the petitioner was discharging the responsibilities of the Head Clerk/chief Clerk/section-in-Charge, WPO entrusted to him since the retirement of ex-Head Clerk, but the petitioner was not even transferred to perform any other job although threatened nor was my other incumbent posted as Head Clerk/chief Clerk/section-in-Charge, WPO except an abortive attempt once to post one Shri Biswas as the Chief Clerk, WPO which also did not materialise. May be, that normally promotion has to be recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee, particularly since the conversion of the Company into a Government Company, but the fact remains that the petitioner has been shouldering and discharging the jobs and responsibilities of the post of Head Clerk/chief Clerk/section-in-Charge since 15-1-82 when the Company was a non-Government Company, and since he has been doing this under the direction of his departmental superior, Manager (Works), it is only just and fair that for the relevant period he should be given the salary of the post of Head Clerk/chief Clerk/section-in-charge on the principle of equal pay for equal work. It is not that it was only a stop-gap arrangement for a few days as a temporary measure that the petitioner officiated in the post of Head Clerk/chief Clerk/section-in-Charge, but on the other hand, the petitioner has been discharging the functions and responsibilities of the said post for this long period as a regular incident rather than as a stop-gap arrangement. If the petitioner was found unsuitable as alleged by the respondents, he should have been relieved much earlier of the functions and responsibilities of the post of Head Clerk/chief Clerk/section-in-Charge which he has been discharging without break during all these years and it will now be grossly arbitrary to say that the petitioner has not been cleared by tire Departmental Promotion Committee, particularly where at the time when the petitioner assumed the functions and responsibilities of the said post of Head Clerk/chief Clerk/section-in-Charge under the direction of the departmental superior there was no existence of any Departmental Promotion Committee as the Government Company was not yet formed and where even after the formation of the Government Company for years the petitioner has been discharging and is being required to discharging the functions and responsibilities of the Head Clerk/chief Clerk/section-in-Charge. ( 8 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances it is. a fit case where the court in its writ jurisdiction should intervene to undo the effect of arbitrariness on the part of the respondents in the matter of depriving the petitioner of the salary of the post in respect of which he has been discharging the entrusted duties and responsibilities under the direction of departmental superior. In the circumstances, the respondents are directed to issue orders giving the petitioner the scale of pay of the Head Clerk/chief Clerk/section-in-Charge, that is, Rs. 300-20-500-EB-600 plus usual Bengal Chamber's D. A. with appropriate fitment therein with effect from 15th January, 1982 and also to formally appoint him as Head Clerk/chief Clerk/section-in-Charge, WPO by passing appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. It is however made Blear that while the benefit of the scale of Head Clerk/chief Clerk/section-in-Charge Rs. 300-20-500-EB-600 plus usual Bengal Chamber's D. A. with appropriate fitment therein with effect from 15th January, 1982 and also to formally appoint him as Head Clerk/chief Clerk/section-in-Charge, WPO by passing appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. It is however made Blear that while the benefit of the scale of Head Clerk/chief Clerk/section-in-Charge Rs. 300-600/- plus usual Bengal Chamber's D. A. as noted above with necessary fitment shall be given to the petitioner with effect from the 15th January, 1982 on the basis of the principle of equal pay for equal work, the formal appointment of the petitioner to the post of Head Clerk/chief Clerk/section-in-Charge which is directed by this order to be given in view of the fact that he has been discharging the functions and responsibilities attached to that post shall have only prospective effect. All arrears shall be paid to the petitioner within four months from the date of communication of this order. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No cost is however ordered. ( 9 ) MR. Dipak Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1 prays for stay of operation of this order for four weeks and such prayer is granted. ( 10 ) AB parties to act on a signed copy of the operative part of this judgment on the usual undertaking. Petition disposed of of.