JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. — The petitioner is an erstwhile employee of the Orissa High Court establishment. He has filed the present writ application challenging the legality of the order dated 5.4.2002 (Annexure-6) rejecting the representation filed by him regarding fixation of his pay admissible to the post of Addl. Deputy Registrar (Judl. and Estt.) of the Court. He has also sought for issuance of a direction to the Opp.Parties to compute the pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits as per the admissible Rules taking the last pay drawn, i.e. the pay admissi¬ble to Addl. Deputy Registrar (Judl. and Estt). 2. According to the petitioner after rendering about 37 years of service, he was promoted to the post of Addl. Stamp Reporter-cum-Oath Commissioner by order dated 4.8.2001. Thereaf¬ter, he was promoted to the post of Addl.Deputy Registrar (Judl. and Estt). on 1.1.2002 and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation while holding the said post with effect from 31.1.2002. According to the petitioner he is entitled to the scale of pay admissible to the post of Addl. Deputy Registrar (Judl. and Estt.) and he is also entitled to computation of his pension on the basis of the last pay drawn by him. After retiring from service, as the Opp. Parties neither fixed his pay as admis¬sible to the post of Addl. Deputy Registrar (Judl. and Estt.) nor computed his pension in consonance with the relevant Rules, he filed a representation on 4.3.2002 praying for suitable fixation of his pay. The representation, as stated above, was rejected by the order dated 5.4.2002 (Annexure-6) and the said action of the Opp.Parties is assailed in this writ petition. 3. On receiving the Rule, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Registrar (Judl.), High Court of Orissa. The Opp.Parties in the counter admitted the assertion that the peti¬tioner was duly promoted to the post of Addl. Stamp Reporter-cum-Oath Commissioner by the order dated 4.8.2001. It is alleged that on the basis of a representation filed, the petitioner was al¬lowed to officiate in the post of Adl. Deputy Registrar (Judl. and Estt.) against a leave vacancy. The specific stand taken in the counter-affidavit is that the petitioner was never promoted to the post of Addl. Deputy Registrar (Judl. and Estt.) and the said post had never fallen vacant at the relevant time. Deputy Registrar (Judl. and Estt.) against a leave vacancy. The specific stand taken in the counter-affidavit is that the petitioner was never promoted to the post of Addl. Deputy Registrar (Judl. and Estt.) and the said post had never fallen vacant at the relevant time. In fact, Shri Arabinda Das who was holding the post of Addl. Deputy Regis¬trar (Judl. and Estt.) availed leaver thereby causing a leave vacancy but said Shri Arabinda Das continued to have a lien over the said post in consonance with Rule 31(2) of the Orissa Service Code. The petitioner was only allowed to officiate in the said higher post and the said order cannot be construed to be an order promoting the petitioner to the post of Addl. Deputy Regis¬trar (Judl. and Estt.) On the basis of such averments, it is contended that the action taken by the Opp.Parties denying the benefits of higher post to the petitioner is just, proper and in consonance with law. 4. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner reiterating the stand taken in the writ petition. It is specifically averred that in past several employees being S/Shri C. R. Parida, P. Swain, A.C. Baral and S.K. Mohanty who were permitted to officiate in the higher post against leave vacancies before retirement on the basis of similar orders were permitted to draw the scale of pay admissible to the post held by them and their pensionary benefits were also calculated in consonance with the last pay drawn. According to the petitioner not extending the self-same benefit to him amounts to gross discrimination and violates the principles of natural justice and equity. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties patiently, examined the documents meticulously and considered the submis¬sions advanced in Court diligently. The controversy in the present case hinges in the interpretation of the notification dated 28.1.2002 (Annexure-3) issued by the High Court allowing the petitioner to officiate in a higher post as Addl.Deputy Registrar (Judl. and Estt.) of the Court carrying the scale of pay of Rs.10,000 - 325 - 15,200.00 in the leave vacancy of Shri Arabinda Das from 1.1.2002 to 31.1.2002. Admittedly prior to 1.1.2002, the petitioner was holding the post of Addl. Stamp Reporter - cum - Oath Commissioner and was drawing the salary of Rs.8,600 -. and Estt.) of the Court carrying the scale of pay of Rs.10,000 - 325 - 15,200.00 in the leave vacancy of Shri Arabinda Das from 1.1.2002 to 31.1.2002. Admittedly prior to 1.1.2002, the petitioner was holding the post of Addl. Stamp Reporter - cum - Oath Commissioner and was drawing the salary of Rs.8,600 -. The notification itself clearly reveals that the petitioner was allowed to officiate in the higher post at a higher scale of pay Rs.10,000-325-15,200.00. Admittedly the petitioner was entrusted with more onerous as well a arduous nature of duty of Addl. Deputy Registrar (Judl. and Estt.) for the period commencing 1.1.2002 to 31.1.2002. For the said period he was not paid any officiating allowance and thus he was entitled to the pay of the said higher post. 6. “Pay” has been defined under Rule 33(a) of the Orissa Service Code and means the amount drawn monthly by a Government servant as the pay other than special pay or pay granted in view of his personal qualification which has been sanctioned for the post held by him substantively or in officiating capacity or to which he is entitled by reason of his position in the cadre. The petitioner, as would be evident from Annexure-3, was allowed to officiate in a higher post carrying a higher scale of pay. That apart, the Notification, Annexure-2 series issued in favour of other employees similarly placed as the petitioner, and allowed to officiate in higher posts in higher scales of pay, were paid salary meant for the said posts. The decision not allowing simi¬lar benefit to the petitioner thus suffers from the vice of discrimination. While rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner, the opposite parties have also not kept in mind Rule 96 of the Orissa Service Code. The said rule stipulates as to how a Government servant who has been allowed to hold substantively as a temporary measure or to officiate in two or more independent posts at one time shall be entitled to the highest pay to which he would be entitled if his appointment on one of the posts stood alone. In the present case according to the stand taken by the opposite parties, the petitioner was holding the substantive post of Stamp Reporter and Oath Commissioner. He was allowed to offici¬ate in a higher post carrying a higher scale of pay. In the present case according to the stand taken by the opposite parties, the petitioner was holding the substantive post of Stamp Reporter and Oath Commissioner. He was allowed to offici¬ate in a higher post carrying a higher scale of pay. Thus he would be entitled to the said higher scale. In course of hearing, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Opp.Parties, submitted that as the petitioner was allowed to hold higher post and shoulder higher responsibilities, he would be entitled to the higher scale of pay stipulated in the notification dated 20.2.2002 and the file was in process for sanction and disbursement of the said amount in favour of the petitioner. 7. After considering the submissions made by Mr. Mishra and Dr. Panda, and as the notification Annexure-3 itself specified that the petitioner was allowed to officiate in the higher post carrying the scale of pay of Rs.10,000 - 325 - 15,200/-, and for the reasons enumerated above, I have no hesita¬tion to hold that the petitioner is entitled to the said scale of pay for the period commencing from 1.1.2002 to 31.1.2002 and I direct accordingly. 8. The only other question which needs determination in this case is the amount of pension to which the petitioner would be entitled. Admittedly, the provisions of the Orissa Civil Serv¬ices (Pension) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) are applicable to the employees working in the High Court of Orissa. 8. The only other question which needs determination in this case is the amount of pension to which the petitioner would be entitled. Admittedly, the provisions of the Orissa Civil Serv¬ices (Pension) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) are applicable to the employees working in the High Court of Orissa. Sub-rule (2)(a) of Rule-47 of the Rules stipulates as follows : “In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of the rules after completing qualifying service of not less than thirty-three years, the amount of pen¬sion shall be calculated at 50 per cent of the emoluments last drawn preceding to retirement.” Rule-48 of the Rules reads as follows : “Emoluments for calculation of pension shall be the emolu¬ments as defined in Rule 2 (1)(e) which the Government servant was receiving immediately before his retirement.” Rule-2(1)(e) defines ‘emoluments’ as follows : “Emoluments” means the basic pay as defined in Rule 33(a)(i) of the Orissa Service Code which the Government servant was re¬ceiving immediately before retirement or on the date of death and includes- (a) personal pay, and additional pay granted under Rule 37(a) and Rule 96 respectively of the Orisa Service Code, and (b) any other recurring emoluments which may be specially classed a ‘pay’ by the Government under Rule 33 (a)(iii) of the Orissa Service Code.” Rule 33(a)(i) of the Orissa Code reads as follows :- 33.(a) Pay means the amount drawn monthly by a Government servant as- (i) the pay, other than special pay or pay granted in view of his personal qualifications, which has been sanctioned for a post held by him substantively or in an officiating capacity or to which he is entitled by reason of his position in the cadre.” 9. A cumulative reading of the Rules referred to above leaves no room of doubt that the pension payable to the petition¬er should be computed taking into consideration the emoluments last drawn by him which connotes the basic pay drawn by him immediately before the retirement. In the present case, immediately before retirement, the petitioner was entitled to draw the scale of pay of Rs.10,000 - 325 - 15,200/- as has been held in the preceding paragraphs. Thus, the pension of the petitioner as per Rules 47 and 48 of the Rules, should be calculated taking into consideration the aforesaid emoluments last drawn by him immediately before his retirement. Thus, the pension of the petitioner as per Rules 47 and 48 of the Rules, should be calculated taking into consideration the aforesaid emoluments last drawn by him immediately before his retirement. 10. The view expressed by me also finds support from the objective of the Office Memorandum dated 5.2.2004 issued by the Government of Orissa in Finance Department. The said Memorandum lays down the principles for grant of additional pay holding combination of posts/appointments. A reading of the Memorandum referred to above clearly reveals that not only in the establishment of the High Court but also in several Government establishments, Government servants were allowed to remain in full charge of higher post at the fag-end of service career and were allowed superannuation while con¬tinuing in that higher post. In all such cases, they were allowed pay of higher post and the pensionary benefits were fixed accord¬ingly. In order to remove the said anomaly, Government of Orissa in its Finance Department issued the Memorandum on 5.2.2004 putting a restriction on continuance of such practice. According to the said Memorandum when a Government servant is allowed to remain in full charge of a higher post and is allowed to retire on superannuation, the officiating pay allowed to him in higher post will not be taken into account for determination of his pensionary benefits. It is stated in the said Memorandum that the relevant provision of Rule 48 of the Orissa Civil Services Pen¬sion Rules, 1992 would be deemed to have been modified according¬ly and necessary amendment to the above rule would be issued in due course. 11. But then, the said Memorandum was issued only on 5.2.2004 i.e. after retirement of the petitioner. In other words, before issuance of the Memorandum referred to above, the prac¬tice of permitting an employee to officiate in the higher post and allowing him to draw the scale of pay prescribed for the said post was in vogue. It also appears from the affidavits filed before this Court that the Opp.Parties granted similar benefits to many other employees earlier. Thus, I do not find any reason not to extend the said benefit to the petitioner. But then, it is made clear that said benefit shall not be granted to the em¬ployees who have retired on attaining the age of superannuation after 5.2.2004 when the Office Memorandum referred to above was issued by Finance Department. 12. Thus, I do not find any reason not to extend the said benefit to the petitioner. But then, it is made clear that said benefit shall not be granted to the em¬ployees who have retired on attaining the age of superannuation after 5.2.2004 when the Office Memorandum referred to above was issued by Finance Department. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. Application allowed.