Judgment Radha Mohan Pd. J. 1. In the present writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to pay to the petitioner the salary of the post of Assistant Director Agriculture (Plant Protection)in the scale of Rs.3000-4500/- with effect from 1-7-1986 and also for the post of Dy. Director Agriculture (Plant Protection) in the scale of Rs.3700-5000/-with effect from 4-1-1991. 2. The short relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was junior Plant Protection Officer in Class II of the Bihar Agriculture Service, was transferred and posted as Assistant Director Agriculture (Plant Protection)vide Government notification dated 2-5-1986 (Annexure 1 ). Thereafter, on 31st December, 1990 the petitioner was transferred and posted as Dy. Director Agriculture (Plant Protection), vide Government notification dated 31-12-1990, contained in Annexure 3. The petitioner through out continued to perform the duties with all responsibilities of the aforementioned respective post during his posting as Asst. Director, Agriculture (Plant Protection) from 1-7-1986 and as Dy. Director, Agriculture (Plant Protection) from 24-1-1991, when be took over charge of the said posts pursuant to the aforementioned notifications of his postings The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he made several representations to the authorities concerned for payment of his salary of the post held by him, but no final order was passed and the petitioner superannuated on 31st July, 1992. 3. Thereafter, it appears that on 2-12-1992 the Government issued notification granting regular promotion to the petitioner in Junior Selection grade in the scale of Rs.3000/- to Rs.4500/- with effect from 1-12-1289 vide annexure 3. However, in the said notification it wac directed that the financial benefit shall only be extended after the concurrence of the Finance department. The learned Counsel submits that although petitioner approached several times the authorities concerned, but no payment, even pursuant to the said regular promotipn has been made to him. Hence, the present writ application has been filed for the relief mentioned above. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. In the said counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner was simply transferred and posted as Assistant Director and Dy. Director and it this own scale, vide Annexures 2 and 3 without giving regular promotions on the posts of higher responsibilities. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. In the said counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner was simply transferred and posted as Assistant Director and Dy. Director and it this own scale, vide Annexures 2 and 3 without giving regular promotions on the posts of higher responsibilities. Further, it is stated that as per the Government circular dated 27-9-1979 of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms department, there is a Kalawadbi of 5 years fixed for promotion from Junior selection grade to Senior Selection grade post, i. e. in the scale of Rs 3700 5000. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since his posting as Assistant Director and Dy. Director, the petitioner continuously worked on the said posts and performed the duties and functions of the same. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the action of the State Government in denying the financial benefit to the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 16 (1) read with Article 39 (B) of the Constitution of India. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has. submitted that as the petitioner was never given regular promotion and was simply posted without any financial benefit, he is not entitled for the salary of the posts held by him under the notifications contained in Annexures 1 and 3. In this regard the learned Counsel has referred to Rule 103. of the Bihar Service code, which reads as follows : "103. In this regard the learned Counsel has referred to Rule 103. of the Bihar Service code, which reads as follows : "103. The pay of a Government servant appointed by the State government to hold substantively, as a temporary measure, or to officiate in, to or more indepenpent posts at one time shall be regulated as follows :- (a) the highest pay to which be would be entitled if his appointment to one of posts stood alone, may be drawn on account of his tenure of that post; (b) for each of the post the may draw such reasonable pay, in no case exceeding half the presumptive pay (excluding overseas pay) of the post, as the State Government may fix ; and (c) if a compensatory allowance is attached to one or more of the posts, he may draw such compensatory allowance as the State government may fix provided that such allowance shall not exeed the total of the compensatory allowance attached to all the posts. " 7 Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, I am of the view that Rule 103 has no application to the facts of the present case, in as much as, the petitioner under Annexure 3 was not appointed to officiate in two or more independent posts at one time. Rule 103 of the Bihar Service Code deals with the case where a Government servant is appointed by the State Government to hold substantively as a temporary measure or to officiate in two or more independent posts at one time, in which cases their salary has to be fixed under the said rule. 8. It is well settled that a Government servant having been promoted posted to a higher post other than by way of purely stop gap arrangement, is entitled to pay of the higher post, as there cannot be any justification to deny the same. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was given aforementioned higher postings and continued on the same till his superannuation. 9. Further, the learned Conusel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was posted on the higher post of Asst. Director after following the procedure of promotion and consideration of his seniority, confidential character roll, vigilence clearance etc. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was given aforementioned higher postings and continued on the same till his superannuation. 9. Further, the learned Conusel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was posted on the higher post of Asst. Director after following the procedure of promotion and consideration of his seniority, confidential character roll, vigilence clearance etc. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has discharged during his aforementioned posting of the statutory duties and fuction of the respective posts. The Supreme Court, in more or less identical case of P. Grover v State of Haryana ( AIR 1983 SC 1060 ) held that the petitioner of the said case was entitled to be paid the salary of the post of District Education Officer from the date she was made to officiate on acting basis although in the said case there was a super condition for her such posting that her pay would not be more than the maximum of the Principles grade, which post she was holding before her posting as District Education officer. 10. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the difference in the salary of the posts held by the petitioner by virtue of the Government notifications contained in Annexures 1 and 3 within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment order. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ Application allowed.