JUDGMENT P. K. MOHANTY, J. — The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to opp.parties 1 and 2 to make payment of the salary at the pay scale attached to the Environmental Scien¬tists with usual D.A. along with all arrear dues from 9.10.1990 to 23.10.1994 and for a direction to confirm the petitioner in the post of Environmental Scientist w.e.f. 9.10.1990. 2. The brief fact of the petitioner’s case is that he is an M.Sc. in Botany and Ph.D from Utkal University. He has ac¬quired LL.B Degree and completed M.Sc. in Pollution and Environ¬mental Control in 1993 from Manchester University, U.K. In Au¬gust, 1984, the petitioner joined as Research Analyst (Trainee) in the State Prevention and Control of Pollution Board with a consolidated salary of Rs. 600/-(Six Hundred). While continuing as such, the petitioner, was appointed as Scientist ‘B’ Class-II in the scale of pay of Rs. 525-1300/- with usual D.A. and A.D.A. as admissible w.e.f. 31.5.1985. It is claimed that pursuant to the decision of the State Prevention and Control of Pollution Board, (hereinafter called the “Board”) held on 7.3.1990, differ¬ent posts were re-designated as Asst. Environmental Scientist and Environmental Scientist respectively. A copy of the Office Order dated 16.4.1990 has been annexed as Annexure-1. The Board also created more posts of Environmental Scientists raising total number of posts to two. The re-organization chart of the Board, Staffing Pattern, scale of pay and creation of additional posts were sent to the opp.party No.3 the Government in Forest and Environment Department for approval, which were approved and the order was communicated by letter dated 24.3.1990, a copy where of is Annexure-3. The petitioner claims that the scale of pay at¬tached to the post of Scientist ‘B’ was subsequently revised to Rs. 1350 - 2975/- w.e.f. 1.1.1985 and thereafter to Rs. 2000 - 3500/- w.e.f. 1.5.1989 and the petitioner had drawn the said scale from the date of his appointment. 3. The petitioner claims that the consequent upon creation of the post of Environment Scientist-I on 7.3.1990, the same was filled up by the petitioner, who was allowed to remain in-charge temporarily and to function as Research Officer for Scientific-I Section vide Order No.9789 dated 9.10.1990. Accordingly to the petitioner, after he joined, the post, was shown to have been filled up resulting in nil vacancy. A copy of the Office Order has been filed as Annexure-4. Accordingly to the petitioner, after he joined, the post, was shown to have been filled up resulting in nil vacancy. A copy of the Office Order has been filed as Annexure-4. Subsequently, a re-organization was made by Office Order No.4129 dated 6.5.1991 and in view of the re-organization of the Staffing Structure, distribution of Offi¬cers/staff to different Section of the Board was also made, in which the petitioner was shown to be in-charge of Scientific Section 1 as Branch Officer in the capacity of Environmental Scientist-I. The petitioner’s proposal for training in U.K. for M.Sc. Degree in Pollution and Environmental Control was approved by the Government by letter dated 15.9.1992, as in Annexure-9. According to the petitioner, he was discharging the duty from 9.10.1990 till date and held the post of Environmental Scientist which is perennial in nature, but he is not being paid the sal¬ary/monthly benefits attached to the post of Environmental Scien¬tist-I. It is alleged that one Dr. P.K. Prusty, Dr. D. K. Behera, Dr. D.N. Bhoi, who were working as Asst. Environmental Scientists were promoted to the post of Environmental Scientist as per the Noti¬fication No. 7539 and 7549 dated 22.9.1994 without regularizing the services of the petitioner, even though sufficient number of posts were available with the Board. However, on 7.10.1994, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Environmental Scientist, although he had been holding the post, since 9.10.1990, as per Annexure-4 by Office Order dated 7.10.1994, copy whereof is Annexure-17. Hence, the present writ application. 4. Opposite party No.2 has filed a return, denying the claim of the petitioner. According to this opp.party, the peti¬tioner was never appointed as an Environmental Scientist-I but he was continuing as Asst. Environmental Scientist w.e.f. 31.5.1985. However, he was kept in-charge of Environmental Scientist-I due to Administrative Exigencies, while working as an Asst. Environ¬mental Scientist in the Scientific Section under Sr. Environmen¬tal Scientist. It is averred that the order in Annexure-4 on which the petitioner, has based his claim is abundantly clear that he was not appointed to the post. In the third meeting of the Board held on 28.12.1983, the Pollution Control Board is said to have approved the proposal for appointment of Research Analyst with a consolidated salary of Rs. It is averred that the order in Annexure-4 on which the petitioner, has based his claim is abundantly clear that he was not appointed to the post. In the third meeting of the Board held on 28.12.1983, the Pollution Control Board is said to have approved the proposal for appointment of Research Analyst with a consolidated salary of Rs. 600/- per month and a selection committee was constituted for selection of the candidates for the post of Research Analyst and Selection Committee recommended a list of 8 candidates in order of merit. In the merit list, the petitioner was junior to Dr. P.K. Prusty, Dr. D.K. Behera and Shri B.N. Bhoi. In terms of the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the Research Analyst including the petitioner were appointed as Scientist ‘B’ in Class-II w.e.f. 31.5.1985. The second post of Environmental Scientist was created by the Board on 7.3.1990 and it was approved by the Government. But the post could not be filled up due to non-availability of qualified personnel and due to administrative difficulty but till appoint¬ment was made on regular basis, the petitioner was kept in-charge of the said post as a temporary arrangement. 5. It is the specific stand of the Pollution Control Board, that the petitioner was kept in-charge of the newly creat¬ed post, even though he was junior to other three such officers since his seniors like Sri Prusty, Sri Behera and Sri Bhoi were not available, Sri Prusty being deputed for foreign training, Sri Behera and Sri Bhoi were on deputation at Rourkela and Rayagada. It is stated that in Annexure-4, it was made clear that the peti¬tioner will not be entitled for any monetary benefit for the period he is kept in-charge of the post. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to the salary attached to the post, specially when he was neither promoted nor holding the post of Environmental Scientist-I permanently and substantively, but was only kept in-charge for administrative convenience. It is further stated that the Board has constituted Internal Promotion Commit¬tee to fill up post Environmental Scientist, and the Committee has recommended certain names in which the petitioner’s name also finds place at Serial-4. Actions are being taken for giving appointment to the post. It is further stated that the Board has constituted Internal Promotion Commit¬tee to fill up post Environmental Scientist, and the Committee has recommended certain names in which the petitioner’s name also finds place at Serial-4. Actions are being taken for giving appointment to the post. The first post is said to be reserved for Scheduled Tribe, third for Scheduled Caste and due to non-availability of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates and since the merit list consisted of general candidates only, permission for de-reservation of the vacancies was sought from the State Government. 6. The undisputed facts as revealed from the pleadings of the parties and submissions made are that the petitioner was continuing as an Assistant Environmental Scientist when by Offi¬cer Order dated 9.10.1990, copy whereof is Annexure-4, he was allowed to remain in-charge of Environmental Scientist-I temporarily on administrative ground, till joining of the Envi¬ronmental Scientist-I by way of deputation/selection. The office order also stipulates that no additional financial benefits would be given to the petitioner during his incumbency as such and he was to function as the in-charge officer in Scientific-I Section in close liason with Environmental Scientist-II. By Office Order dated 6.5.1991, a copy whereof is Annexure-8, distribution of Officer/staff to different Sections of the Board was made and under Scientific Section-1, the petitioner was shown to be the Branch Officer in-charge. By Notification No.75391/Esst/SPCB dated 22.9.1994 (Annexure-16) on the recommendation for the Internal Promotion Committee, Dr. P.K. Prusty, and Dr. D.K. Behera, Assistant Environmental Scientist were promoted, on adhoc basis to the post of Environmental Scientist in the scale of pay of Rs. 2800 - 4350/. The petitioner, was promoted temporarily to the rank of Environmental Scientist by Office Order dated 7.10.1994 (Annexure-17) vice Dr. D.K. Behera, Environmental Scientist transferred and posts as Sr. Scientific Officer to a temporary scheme “Management at Hazardous Substance” and he joined the said post on 24.10.1994. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petition¬er is that since the petitioner was holding the post of Environ¬mental Scientist on the date of promotion, his service should have been regularized and he should have been promoted w.e.f. 9.10.1990, the date from which he was discharging the duties and responsibilities of Environmental Scientist. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petition¬er is that since the petitioner was holding the post of Environ¬mental Scientist on the date of promotion, his service should have been regularized and he should have been promoted w.e.f. 9.10.1990, the date from which he was discharging the duties and responsibilities of Environmental Scientist. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner and three others were appointed on the same day and the appointment letter does not even whisper a word about seniority or merit and for the promotion to the post of Asst. Environmental Scientist, no Selection Committee was constituted. The petitioner claims that in view of the endorse¬ment in the Service Books (Annexure-10) and the Office Order dated 7.10.1994 temporarily promoting the petitioner to the rank of Environmental Scientist, the petitioner having worked as an Environmental Scientist from 1990 to 1994 without any interruption wheras other three persons, who were serving as Asst. Environmental Scientist and all having joined in service as Scientist-B on the same day, i.e. on 31.5.1985 and the petitioner being senior in age, and gained experience, he ought to have been given continuity of service and paid the salary for the said period. The contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. 8. The petitioner while working as Asst.Environmental Scientist, by office order dated 9.10.1990, a copy of is Annex¬ure-4, was allowed to remain in-charge of Environmental Scien¬tist-I temporarily on administrative ground. The office order also stipulated that no additional financial benefits will be given to the petitioner during his incumbency as such and he will function as Branch Officer in Scientist-I Section. The Service Book Annexure-10 at the relevant page carries an endorsement dated 30.5.1990 that the petitioner was allowed to remain in-charge of Environmental Scientist temporarily without any finan¬cial benefits in terms of Office Order dated 9.10.1990. It is the specific case of the opp.Party Pollution Control Board that the petitioner was appointed as Scientist-B in Class-II on 31.5.1985 pursuant to the recommendation of the Selection Committee con¬sisting of five members including Chairman of the Board and the Member-Secretary and as per the merit list, the petitioner was junior to Sri P.K. Prusty, D.K. Behera and Sri B.M. Bhoi being at serial No.4 of the merit list. The second post of Environmental Scientist was created by Board’s Resolution dated 7.3.1990 and approved by the Government on 24.3.1990. The second post of Environmental Scientist was created by Board’s Resolution dated 7.3.1990 and approved by the Government on 24.3.1990. But the post could not be filled up due to non-availability of qualified personnel and/or due to administrative difficulty, for which the authori¬ties decided to keep the petitioner in-charge of the post as a temporary arrangement for conduct of business/administration. 9. It appears that the petitioner was allowed to remain in-charge because his senior Sri P.K. Prusty was on deputation on foreign training to U.K., Sri Behera and Sri Bhoi were holding the posts of Research Officer in Rourkela and Rayagada respec¬tively on deputation. Thus, it appears from records that the decision of the Board to keep the petitioner in-charge was in a fortuitous circumstances, that his three immediately seniors were not available with the Board at that point of time being on deputation or training elsewhere. According to the Board, in terms of Annexure-4, he has not been appointed to the post of Environmental Scientist and, therefore, not entitled to the scale attached to the said post. 10. In such view of the matter, the petitioner having been kept in-charge of the post of Environmental Scientist, because his three other immediate senior officers were not available with the Board for being placed in-charge, he cannot claim either seniority or a right to be regularized in the said Post, ignoring the claim of such Senior Officers. The specific stand in the counter that the petitioner was at serial No.4 of the merit list recommended by the Selection Committee for the Post of Assistant Environmental Scientist has not been controverted nor the peti¬tioner’s claim to be senior to the other three officers. In such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to claim a right to be appointed as an Environmental Scientist earlier to his three immediate seniors, unless of course, he is considered more meri¬torious and more suitable to hold such Post than his immediate seniors by the Selection Committee for reasons. There is nothing on record to indicate so, rather it is the definite stand of the Board that the Selection Committee placed the petitioner at serial No.4 of the merit list for appointment. The petitioner has already been promoted temporarily to the rank of Environmental Scientist in the scale of pay of Rs. 2800 - 4350/- in the vacancy of one Dr. The petitioner has already been promoted temporarily to the rank of Environmental Scientist in the scale of pay of Rs. 2800 - 4350/- in the vacancy of one Dr. D.K. Behera, Environmental Scientist, transferred to the temporary scheme “Management of Hazardous Substance” by office order dated 7.10.1994, copy whereof is Annexure-17. The Office Order dated 9.10.1990 Annexure-4 also made it clear that till joining of the Environmental Scientist-I by way of Deputa¬tion/Selection, the petitioner, who was working as Asst. Environ¬mental Scientist was to be in-charge of the Environmental Scien¬tist-I temporarily on administrative ground but without any additional financial benefits. The claim and contention of the petitioner that he was entitled to the scale of pay of an Envi¬ronmental Scientist for the period he was kept in charge of such Post cannot be accepted. The contention of the petitioner further that he having been appointed as Environmental Scientist-I since 7.10.1994, the earlier period he had worked as such should have been counted also cannot be accepted, since he was not appointed to the said post, but was kept in-charge, in the peculiar circum¬stances, that all the three of his seniors were not available with the Board being either on deputation for training or to other organization, as discussed earlier. Seniority in age and experience gained as in-charge of the Post, is no ground for giving continuity of service from such anterior date. The Apex Court in Ramakant Shripal Sinai Adralpalkar v. Union of India and others reported in 1992(6) SLR 290, while considering a similar claim of a person kept in-charge of a higher post, while holding a Lower Post, held that such arrangement cannot be treated as a promotion and as such in such a case, he does not get the salary of a higher Post. But he may get a charge allowance only. It has been held that such contingencies are contemplated where exigen¬cies of Public Service necessitated such arrangements and even seniority does not enter into. The person continues to hold his substantive lower post and only discharges the duties of a higher post essentially as a stop gap arrangement. The Apex Court has laid down that “in-charge arrangement” is not recognition of or is necessarily based on seniority and that therefore, no right, equity or expectation could be built upon it. 11. The person continues to hold his substantive lower post and only discharges the duties of a higher post essentially as a stop gap arrangement. The Apex Court has laid down that “in-charge arrangement” is not recognition of or is necessarily based on seniority and that therefore, no right, equity or expectation could be built upon it. 11. In such view of the matter, the arrangement made keep¬ing in-charge of the Post of Environmental Scientist does not amount to promotion nor the petitioner can claim either the salary attached to the post or seniority over his seniors or regularization from the date of such arrangement. However, it appears that the opp.party Board in its resolu¬tion dated 21.11.1986, accepted the Service Conditions generally applicable to State Government employees to that of the Board employees and the State employees to that of the Board employees and the State employees, under such circumstances get a charge allowance for remaining in-charge of a higher post. In such view of the matter, the petitioner having been kept in-charge of the higher post of Environmental Scientist should be paid a charge allowance for the period he discharged such function and he cannot be deprived of such an allowance even if it is so stipu¬lated in the order, Annexure-4. In that view of the matter, we direct the opp.party Board to extend a reasonable charge allowance for the period the petition¬er was kept in-charge of the Post in terms of Annexure-4 dated 9.10.1990 till he was appointed temporarily to the Post of Envi¬ronmental Scientist. The writ petition is thus disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to cost. L. MOHAPATRA, J. I agree. Petition disposed of.