ORDER 1. LEAVE GRANTED. 2. THE QUESTION RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL PAY FOR OFFICIATING IN THE TWO POSTS OF PRINCIPAL AND MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT WHILE HE WAS HOLDING THE POST OF A PROFESSOR IN PATLIPUTRA MEDICAL COLLEGE, DHANBAD. 3. THE NOTIFICATION UNDER WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO DISCHARGE ADDITIONAL DUTIES AS PRINCIPAL, STATED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS APPOINTED IN PLACE OF THE ERSTWHILE PRINCIPAL WHO HAD RETIRED AND THAT THE APPELLANT WAS TO OFFICIATE AS PRINCIPAL ON THE VACANT POST IN HIS OWN PAY SCALE. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THIS ARRANGEMENT WAS WHOLLY TEMPORARY AND WOULD BE AUTOMATICALLY TERMINATED AFTER THE POSTING OF THE REGULAR PRINCIPAL. ALTHOUGH THE NOTIFICATION IS DATED 14-2-1997, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE APPELLANT IN FACT TOOK OVER CHARGE AS PRINCIPAL FROM 1-2-1997 IMMEDIATELY UPON THE RETIREMENT OF THE PREVIOUS PRINCIPAL. THE SECOND NOTIFICATION ISSUED ON 26-121997 WAS COUCHED IN SIMILAR LANGUAGE AND THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF THE SUPERINTENDENT WHO HAD RETIRED ON 30-11-1997. HERE TOO, THE APPELLANT TOOK OVER THE CHARGE OF THE POST OF SUPERINTENDENT W.E.F. 1-12-1997. 4. THE APPELLANT RETIRED ON 30-9-2000. HE CLAIMED ADDITIONAL PAY FOR THE PERIOD HE HAD OFFICIATED IN THE POST OF PRINCIPAL AND MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT DURING WHICH PERIOD THE APPELLANT WAS OFFICIATING EITHER AS THE PRINCIPAL OR SUPERINTENDENT OR IN BOTH THE AFORESAID CAPACITIES FROM 1-2-1997 TO 30-9-2000. THE PERIOD DURING WHICH HE DISCHARGED THE AFORESAID DUTIES WHILE HE WAS OFFICIATING IN EITHER ONE OR BOTH OF THESE CAPACITIES NEED NOT DETAIN US BECAUSE THE APPELLANT IS NOT CLAIMING THAT HE SHOULD BE PAID ADDITIONAL PAY TWICE FOR THE PERIOD WHEN HE WAS DISCHARGING THE ADDITIONAL DUTIES OF BOTH POSTS. 5. THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED UPON RULE 103 OF THE BIHAR SERVICE CODE, 1952, THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF WHICH PROVIDES: "THE PAY OF A GOVERNMENT SERVANT APPOINTED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT TO HOLD SUBSTANTIVELY, AS A TEMPORARY MEASURE, OR TO OFFICIATE IN TWO OR MORE INDEPENDENT POSTS AT ONE TIME SHALL BE REGULATED AS FOLLOWS: (B) FOR EACH OTHER POST HE 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." 6. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON NOTE 4 TO THE AFORESAID RULES WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: "THE EXTRA REMUNERATION ADMISSIBLE UNDER CLAUSE (B) OF THIS RULE SHOULD NOT ORDINARILY EXCEED 20 PER CENT OF THE PRESUMPTIVE PAY OF THE POST WHOSE DUTIES THE GOVERNMENT SERVANT IS PERFORMING." 7. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT IT IS CLEAR FROM THIS RULE THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO DRAW AN ADDITIONAL PAY CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF THE PAY WHICH WAS PRESUMPTIVELY PAYABLE IN RESPECT OF THE POSTS IN WHICH HE WAS OFFICIATING SUBJECT TO THE LIMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER NOTE 4. 8. THE APPELLANTS REPRESENTATION TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT WAS, HOWEVER, REJECTED. HE FILED A WRIT PETITION WHICH WAS DISPOSED OF BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE WHICH APPEARED TO UPHOLD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT SAYS: "HE IS ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL PAY AS ENVISAGED IN RULE 130 OF THE BIHAR SERVICE CODE WHICH HAS PASSED DIRECTION FOR PAYMENT OF THE SAME EITHER THE DUES BETWEEN HIS PAY AND PAY OF THE PRINCIPAL AND SUPERINTENDENT OF THE MEDICAL COLLEGE OR 20% OF ADDITIONAL SUBSTANTIVE PAY, WHICHEVER IS LESS, WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT/PRODUCTION OF A COPY OF THIS ORDER". 9. SINCE THE RULE QUOTED WAS INCORRECT AND SINCE THE DIRECTION WAS SOMEWHAT AMBIGUOUS THE APPELLANT FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CORRECTION OF THE NUMBER OF THE RULE AND FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE WHICH, HE SAID, SHOULD HAVE READ: "FOR PAYMENT OF 20% OF SUBSTANTIVE PAY SCALE OF POST OF PROFESSOR OR OF PRINCIPAL, WHICHEVER PAY SCALE IS LESS". 10. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE PAY SCALE OF A PROFESSOR AND THE PRINCIPAL WAS THE SAME. THE PRAYER, THEREFORE, WAS THAT THE APPROPRIATE MODIFICATION SHOULD BE MADE AND THAT THE APPELLANT BE PAID 20% ADDITIONAL PAY OF THE PAY SCALE DRAWN BY HIM AS PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF FORENSIC MEDICINE, PATLIPUTRA MEDICAL COLLEGE, DHANBAD, FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN 1-2-1997 TO 30-9-2000. 11. THE APPLICATION WAS PARTLY ALLOWED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE TO THE EXTENT THAT THE RULE WAS CORRECTED TO READ RULE 103 INSTEAD OF 130. A CORRECTION WAS ALSO MADE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE STATE COUNSEL AS RECORDED IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER. HOWEVER, THE SUBSTANTIVE PRAYER OF THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ALLOWED. 12. 11. THE APPLICATION WAS PARTLY ALLOWED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE TO THE EXTENT THAT THE RULE WAS CORRECTED TO READ RULE 103 INSTEAD OF 130. A CORRECTION WAS ALSO MADE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE STATE COUNSEL AS RECORDED IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER. HOWEVER, THE SUBSTANTIVE PRAYER OF THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ALLOWED. 12. THE APPELLANT PREFERRED AN APPEAL FROM THIS REFUSAL OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE TO CORRECT HIS ORDER. THE APPEAL WAS DISPOSED OF ON THE MISTAKEN BASES THAT THE PROCEEDING BEFORE THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE WAS A PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND THAT THE APPELLANT WAS QUESTIONING THE VERY CORRECTIONS THAT HAD BEEN ALLOWED IN HIS FAVOUR. BOTH THE BASES WERE IN FACT INCORRECT. 13. THE APPELLANT HAS IMPUGNED THE DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH BEFORE THIS COURT AND STRICTLY SPEAKING, WE SHOULD HAVE MERELY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE DIVISION BENCH WHICH IS PALPABLY WRONG AND REMANDED THE A MATTER BACK TO THE DIVISION BENCH FOR RECONSIDERATION ON THE PLEAS AS RAISED. HOWEVER, HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE MATTER HAS BEEN PENDING FOR SOME TIME AND THE APPELLANT SUPERANNUATED ON 30-9-2000 WE DECIDED TO DISPOSE OF THE MATTER FINALLY OURSELVES. 14. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THIS COURT THAT RULE 103 HAD NO MANNER OF APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE B BECAUSE THE APPELLANT WAS NOT HOLDING THE POST OF A HIGHER RANK AND, THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF NOTE (2)(B) TO RULE 103 OF THE BIHAR SERVICE CODE, HIS CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL PAY MUST BE REJECTED. THE SUBMISSION IS MISCONCEIVED AND PROCEEDS ON MISCONSTRUCTION OF NOTE (2)(B) WHICH PROVIDES: "WHEN A GAZETTED GOVERNMENT SERVANT HOLDS CHARGE ONLY OF THE CURRENT DUTIES OF AN OFFICER OF HIGHER RANK FOR NOT LESS THAN ONE MONTH, HE MAY BE GRANTED SUCH ADDITIONAL PAY FOR THE PERIOD AS THE STATE GOVERNMENT MAY IN EACH CASE DIRECT." 15. IN THE FIRST PLACE THE RULE ITSELF AS QUOTED EARLIER, EXPLICITLY ALLOWED THE GOVERNMENT SERVANT APPOINTED TO OFFICIATE IN TWO OR MORE INDEPENDENT POSTS TO BE PAID REASONABLE PAY IN NO CASE EXCEEDING HALF THE PRESUMPTIVE PAY OF THE OFFICIATING POST. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE FORGOES HIS OWN SALARY AND ACCEPTS HALF THE PAY OF THE OFFICIATING POST. IN THE FIRST PLACE THE RULE ITSELF AS QUOTED EARLIER, EXPLICITLY ALLOWED THE GOVERNMENT SERVANT APPOINTED TO OFFICIATE IN TWO OR MORE INDEPENDENT POSTS TO BE PAID REASONABLE PAY IN NO CASE EXCEEDING HALF THE PRESUMPTIVE PAY OF THE OFFICIATING POST. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE FORGOES HIS OWN SALARY AND ACCEPTS HALF THE PAY OF THE OFFICIATING POST. IT MEANS THAT THE GOVERNMENT SERVANT IS ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL PAY OVER AND ABOVE HIS REGULAR SALARY WHICH ADDITIONAL PAY MAY, SUBJECT TO ANY DIRECTION OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT, BE UP TO A LIMIT OF HALF THE PRESUMPTIVE PAY OF THE OFFICIATING POST. IN THIS CASE THE STATE GOVERNMENT HAS CURTAILED THE LIMIT TO 20% UNDER NOTE 4. THEREFORE, THE E APPELLANT, IN TERMS OF RULE 103, WAS ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL PAY FOR THE "OTHER POST" AT THE RATE OF 20% OF THE PAY OF SUCH OTHER POST DURING THE PERIOD HE WAS APPOINTED TO OFFICIATE IN SUCH POST. 16. A NOTE TO A RULE CANNOT DEROGATE FROM THE EXPLICIT WORDS OF THE SUBSTANTIVE PROVISION AND MUST BE READ AS EXPLANATORY AND IN HARMONY WITH IT. THE SUBSTANTIVE PROVISION IS RULE 103(B) AND THE RELEVANT NOTE IS NOTE 4, BOTH OF WHICH CLEARLY PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL PAY AT 20% OF THE PAY OF THE OFFICIATING POST. THESE PROVISIONS ENTITLE THE APPELLANT TO ADDITIONAL PAY OF THE POST OF BOTH MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT AND PRINCIPAL. 17. NOTE (2)(B) ON WHICH THE RESPONDENT SEEKS TO RELY MERELY SAYS THAT THE GAZETTED GOVERNMENT SERVANT WHO DISCHARGES CURRENT DUTIES OF AN OFFICER OF A HIGHER RANK SHALL BE GRANTED SUCH ADDITIONAL PAY AS THE STATE GOVERNMENT MAY DIRECT. THIS COVERS CASES WHERE ADDITIONAL CHARGE IS TAKEN NOT OF A POST OF EQUIVALENT RANK WHICH WOULD BE COVERED BY NOTE 4, BUT OF A POST OF A HIGHER RANK. IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT THE RANK OF A PRINCIPAL IS HIGHER THAN THAT OF PROFESSOR AND INDEED THAT WAS THE STAND TAKEN BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT WHILE REJECTING THE REPRESENTATION OF THE APPELLANT PURSUANT TO AN ORDER PASSED IN SOME EARLIER PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE APPELLANT. THE POST H OF PROFESSOR WHICH THE APPELLANT HELD AT THE RELEVANT TIME, WAS A FEEDER POST TO THE POST OF PRINCIPAL. THE POST H OF PROFESSOR WHICH THE APPELLANT HELD AT THE RELEVANT TIME, WAS A FEEDER POST TO THE POST OF PRINCIPAL. IN ANY EVENT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT WAS A DISCHARGING ADDITIONAL DUTIES OF A POST EITHER OF AN EQUIVALENT OR OF A HIGHER RANK, WHEN HE OFFICIATED AS PRINCIPAL AND WOULD BE ENTITLED EITHER UNDER NOTE 4 IN THE FIRST CASE OR NOTE 2 IN THE SECOND, TO ADDITIONAL PAY AS PRESCRIBED. THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE WAS CORRECT WHEN HE UPHELD THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT BUT WAS INCORRECT IN THE EXPRESSION OF THE RELIEFS GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT WHILE DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION. HE SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT AS PRAYED FOR BY THE APPELLANT. 18. THE DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH CANNOT IN ANY EVENT BE SUSTAINED. WE, ACCORDINGLY, DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE DIVISION BENCH AND ALLOWING THIS APPEAL BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT THE APPELLANT 20 PER CENT OF THE SUBSTANTIVE PAY SCALE OF THE POST OF PROFESSOR, FORENSIC MEDICINE AS ADDITIONAL PAY FOR THE PERIOD DURING WHICH HE OFFICIATED AS PRINCIPAL AND/OR MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT. THERE WILL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS.