This writ petition has been filed praying mainly for directing the respondents to give pay and other service benefits of a regularly appointed Principal of a Higher Secondary School to the petitioner with effect from 23.10.1997 as long as he works as an in-charge Principal of Higher Secondary School. According to the petitioner, though he is a Vice Principal, he has been serving as an in-charge Principal in different Higher Secondary Schools since 23.10.1997 under orders issued by the competent authority in the name of Governor of the State and in that capacity, he is also discharging the same duties 2 and responsibilities of a regularly appointed Principal of a Higher Secondary School. Further, according to the petitioner, apart from the existence of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of his case, the respondents, either on their own or on directions of this court in similar cases, have also given pay and other benefits of a regular appointees of different posts to those discharging the duties and responsibilities of the said posts on an in-charge basis and as such, denial of pay and other benefits of a regularly appointed Principal to the petitioner will be arbitrary or discriminatory act on their part. 2. I have heard Mr.Kh.Binoykumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Md. Jallalludin, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents. 3. There is no dispute in between the parties in respect of the following facts :- While serving as a lecturer of a Higher Secondary School, the petitioner was promoted as Vice-Principal on regular basis vide order passed on 16.2.1996 by Secretary (Education), Govt. of Manipur in the name of Governor of the State and he was transferred and posted as Vice-Principal of Ukhrul Higher Secondary School vide order passed on 13.3.1996. On 14.3.96, an order was passed for continuing to utilize the service of the petitioner as Deputy Secretary (Examination), Council of Higher Secondary Education, Manipur, with directions to draw his pay and allowances of Vice Principal from the Education Directorate(S), Govt. of Manipur until further order. On 14.3.96, an order was passed for continuing to utilize the service of the petitioner as Deputy Secretary (Examination), Council of Higher Secondary Education, Manipur, with directions to draw his pay and allowances of Vice Principal from the Education Directorate(S), Govt. of Manipur until further order. On 23.10.97, the petitioner was transferred and posted as Principal on look after basis to Ukhrul Higher Secondary School under an order issued by the Secretary to the Government of Manipur in the name of the Governor of the State by providing that the petitioner would be entitled to duty allowances at the rate fixed by the Government for performing higher responsibilities in addition to his grade pay. Then, he was again transferred and posted as in-charge Principal of Langmeidong Higher Secondary School vide order passed by the competent authority on 21.6.1999 without mentioning anything about duty allowances. In partial modification of the said order dated 21.6.1999, he was transferred and posted as in-charge Principal, Wangkhei Girls Higher Secondary School vide order passed on 3.7.99. Thereafter, he was transferred and posted as in-charge Principal of T.G.Higher Secondary school until further order vide order passed by the competent authority on 20.4.2000 against the clear vacancy arising from the retirement of the then Principal, Smt.Th.Ibemhal Devi. Copies of the above said orders are at Annexures-A/1 to A/7. Thus, the petitioner has been serving as an in-charge Principal of different Higher Secondary Schools since 23.10.1997.In any of the said orders issued in 1999 & 2000, nothing is found to have mentioned about the payment of higher pay or duty allowances for performing higher responsibilities. As an in-charge Principal, the petitioner has been doing the same work and discharging the same duties and responsibilities of a regularly appointed Principal of Higher Secondary School since 23.10.97. Accordingly, he has been practically officiating the post of Principal of various Higher Secondary Schools from time to time since 23.10.1997. 4. However, there is dispute in between the parties in respect of the question if the petitioner is entitled to get the salary of the post of Principal of Higher Secondary school for the period for which he discharges the duty and responsibility of that post. I have perused the authorities produced by both sides in support of their respective views. 5. In Selva Raj v. Lt. I have perused the authorities produced by both sides in support of their respective views. 5. In Selva Raj v. Lt. Governor of Island, Port Blair and ors.; AIR 1999 SC 838 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :- “ It is not in dispute that the appellant look after the duties of Secretary (Scouts) from the date of the order and his salary was to be drawn against the post of Secretary (Scouts) under GFR.77. Still he was not paid the said salary for the work done by him as Secretary (Scouts). It is of course true that the appellant was not regularly promoted to the said post. It is also true that as stated in the counter affidavit of Deputy Resident Commissioner, Andaman & Nicobar Administration that the appellant was regularly posted in the pay scale of 1200 - 2040 and he was asked to look after the duties of Secretary (Scouts) as per the order aforesaid. It is also true that had this arrangement not been done, he would have to be transferred to the interior islands where the post of PST was available, but he appellant was keen to stay in Port Blair as averred in the said counter. However in our view, these averments in the counter will not change the real position. Fact remains that the appellant has worked on the higher post though temporarily and in an officiating capacity pursuant to the aforesaid order and his salary was to be drawn during that time against the post of Secretary (Scouts). It is also not in dispute that the salary attached to the post of Secretary (Scouts) was in the pay scale of 1640-2900. Consequently, on the principle of quantum merit the respondents authorities should have paid the appellant as per the emoluments available in the aforesaid higher pay scale during the time he actually worked on the said post of Secretary (Scouts) though in an officiating capacity and not as a regular promotee. This limited relief is required to be given to the appellant only on this ground.” 6. This limited relief is required to be given to the appellant only on this ground.” 6. In Judhistir Mohanty v. State of Orissa and ors.; (1996) 10 SCC 531 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :- “ It is a settled position that if the Govt., for want of candidate, direct an officer in the lower cadre to perform the duties of the post in the higher cadre, during that period, necessarily, the incumbent would be entitled to the payment of the salary attached to the post if the incumbent had performed the duties in that post. Similarly where the officer concerned is on promotion from lower cadre to the higher cadre, though on ad hoc or even temporary basis, the incumbent would be entitled to the payment of the salary attached to the post for the period of his discharging the duty in that post.” 7. In Secretary -cum- Chief Engineer, Chandigarh, appellant v. Hari Om Sharma and ors, the respondents; AIR 1998 SC 2909 , the respondent was found promoted as Junior Engineer-1 in 1990 and was continuing on that post without being paid salary for that post or without being promoted on regular basis. It was in that situation that the respondent approached the Tribunal and it allowed the claim petition with the direction that the respondent should be paid salary for the post of Junior Engineer-1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held:- “The Tribunal was justified in ordering payment of salary to the respondent for the post of Junior Engineer-1 with effect from 1990 when he was made to work on that post. It is true that the respondent, to begin with, was promoted in stop gap arrangements as Junior Engineer-1 but that by itself would make no difference to his claim of salary for that post. If a person is put to officiate on higher post with greater responsibilities, he is normally entitled to salary of that post. The tribunal has noticed that the respondent has been working on the post of Junior Engineer -1 since 1990 and promotion for such a long period of time cannot be treated to be a stop gap arrangement.” 8. If a person is put to officiate on higher post with greater responsibilities, he is normally entitled to salary of that post. The tribunal has noticed that the respondent has been working on the post of Junior Engineer -1 since 1990 and promotion for such a long period of time cannot be treated to be a stop gap arrangement.” 8. In Jaswant Singh v. Punjab Poultry Field Staff Association & ors.; (2002) 1 SCC 261 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the appellant, who was working as Chick Sexer but not possessing the necessary qualification under the rules and not holding any of the feeder posts under the rules could not be promoted as “Chick Sexer”. On paragraph 11, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held, “Therefore, the appellant's promotion to the post of Chick Sexer cannot be upheld, given the fact that the appellant had discharged the duties of Chick Sexer, he was at least entitled to pay and other allowances attributable to that post during the period he carried out such duties.” 9. In the present case, since the petitioner, though posted as an incharge Principal, is found to have been doing the same work and discharging the same duties and responsibilities of a regularly appointed Principal of a Higher Secondary School without any extra remuneration at least from 21.6.1999 after excluding the period from 23.10.1997 to 20.6.1999 during which as per transfer and posting order itself, he was entitled to duty allowances for performing higher responsibility in addition to is grade pay, having regards to the above said decisions of the Apex Court, he is prima-facie entitled to the pay and allowance of the post of Principal of a Higher Secondary School. 10. In Writ Appeal No.115/2001, a Division Bench of this Court vide order passed on 9.11.2004 upheld the judgment and order dated 1.10.2001 passed by a Single Bench of this Court in WP(C) No.1190/2001 by holding that the respondents/writ petitioners would be entitled to the scale of pay for the post of Assistant Engineers (Elect) as they were allowed to perform the duties of the said post. A similar view was held by different Division Benches of this Court in Writ Appeal No.75/2003 and Writ Appeal No.3/1999 vide order passed on 20.9.2004 and 9.6.1999 respectively. A similar view was held by different Division Benches of this Court in Writ Appeal No.75/2003 and Writ Appeal No.3/1999 vide order passed on 20.9.2004 and 9.6.1999 respectively. Different Single Benches of this Court are found to have taken the same view in WP(C) No. 213/2002, vide order passed on18.2.2002; in WP(C) Nos. 325, 363, 365 and 368/2002, vide common order passed on 22.3.2002; in WP(C) No. 72/2002, vide order passed on18.2.2002; in WP(C) No. 1190/2001, vide order passed on 01.10.2001; in WP(C) No. 1392/2001, vide order passed on 19.9.2001; in WP(C) No. 708/2003, vide order passed on 30.5.2003; in WP(C) No. 1509/2001, vide order passed on 03.10.2001; in WP(C) Nos. 94, 116, 117 and 119/2002, vide common order passed on 11.2.2002; in W(C) No. 376/2003, vide order passed on 12.3.2003, etc. Many other decisions of this Court holding the above said view are brought to the notice of this court by the learned counsel of the petitioner and only some of the decisions are mentioned above. 11. On the other hand, the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate submits that there are also decisions of this Court holding view contrary to the view mentioned above. The decisions cited by the learned Addl.GA in support of the Government/respondents are Golap Ch. Chetia v. Assam Administrative Tribunal and ors, 2004 (1) GLT 5 and Devakanta Sharma v. State of Assam & ors.; 2004 (3) GLT 500. 12. In Gulap Ch. Chetia v. Assam Administrative Tribunal and ors, 2004 (1) GLT 5, when the appellant, who was allowed to hold full charge of the post of Financial Advisor in addition to his own duties, claimed pay of the higher post of Financial Advisor and sought for fixation of his pay under FR 49(a), the Division Bench of this Court held that the provisions of FR 49(a) were not applicable. The Division Bench was of the view that for application of FR 49 (a), a necessary condition was appointment on two or more independent posts at the same time and that condition having not been fulfilled in the case of the appellant, he was not entitled to pay of higher post. The Division Bench nowhere considered the question if the appellant was in fact officiating the higher post, he would be entitled to the pay of the higher post on the basis of the decisions already noted above as referred on behalf of the petitioner. The Division Bench nowhere considered the question if the appellant was in fact officiating the higher post, he would be entitled to the pay of the higher post on the basis of the decisions already noted above as referred on behalf of the petitioner. It is to be noted that the question of application of Section 49(a) is not involved in the present case. The question has not been raised by either of the parties. 13. In, Debakanta Sharma v. State of Assam & ors.; 2004 (3) GLT 500, the Single Bench of this court held, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that while the petitioner was acting as in-charge Head Master in addition to his own duties of Assistant Head Master, he was not, in fact, officiating in the higher post. According to the learned Single Judge, the provisions of FR 49(c) apply in full vigour in the facts and circumstances of the case. In our present case, it is not the case of the Government respondents that the petitioner is not entitled to the higher pay by virtue of the provisions of any clause of FR 49. It is not also the case of the Government respondents that the petitioner is only holding the current charge of routine duties of the post of Principal of a Higher Secondary School. 14. The learned Addl. Govt. Advocate draws my attention to the decision of the Apex Court in Ramakanta Shripad Sinai Advalpalkar v. Union of India & ors.; AIR 1991 SC 1145 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:- “ Asking an officer who substantively holds a lower post merely to discharge the duties of a higher post cannot be treated as a promotion. In such a case, he does not get the salary of the higher post, but gets only that in service parlance is called “charge allowance”. Such situations are contemplated where exigencies of public service necessitate such arrangements and even consideration of seniority do not enter into it. The person continues to hold his substantive lower post and only discharges 7 the duties of the higher post essentially as a stop-gap arrangement.” In the said case, the petitioner joined service as “Aspirante” said to correspond to the post of an Upper Division Clerk but he was acting in the higher post of Grade-III officer. The person continues to hold his substantive lower post and only discharges 7 the duties of the higher post essentially as a stop-gap arrangement.” In the said case, the petitioner joined service as “Aspirante” said to correspond to the post of an Upper Division Clerk but he was acting in the higher post of Grade-III officer. The post of Treasurer in the establishment having fallen vacant upon the death of the person who then held that post, he was asked to perform the duties of the Treasurer on the stipulation that he would draw, besides the monthly salary of his own post as acting Grade-III officer which he then was, an allowance of Rs.100/- per month which was payable to the post of Treasurer under the existing rules. It was, in the facts and circumstances, the above said decision was made. In our present case, the petitioner has been holding the next lower post of Principal i.e. Vice Principal substantially and in all orders of the transfers and postings passed on 21.6.1999 and subsequent to it, nothing is found to have been mentioned about the payment of any extra allowance for performing duties and for discharging the responsibilities of the post of Principal. The arrangement under which the present petitioner has been performing the duties and discharging the responsibilities of a Principal cannot be considered as a stop gap arrangement for a few days and thereby not warranting any payment for the duties performed and higher responsibilities discharged by the petitioner. It is also to be noted that in the present case, the petitioner is not claiming that he has already been promoted to the post of Principal of a Higher Secondary School. 15. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate draws the attention of this court to the case of Pabitra Mohan Dash etc. v. State of Orissa & ors.; AIR 2001 SC 560 in which the Apex Court held that a person appointed as Head Master not incharge contrary to the relevant rules cannot claim any right to the post of Head Master on the basis of that appointment even if the same might have been approved by any educational authorities. In the opinion of the Apex Court, the in-charge Head Master is not the same as Head Master of the School and it merely entitles the person to remain in-charge and discharge the duties of the Head Master. In the opinion of the Apex Court, the in-charge Head Master is not the same as Head Master of the School and it merely entitles the person to remain in-charge and discharge the duties of the Head Master. The said case was dealt with in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations in the facts and circumstance of the case. In my opinion, this case cannot be considered as one laying down any proposition of law to the effect that a person holding the post on in-charge basis is not entitled to the pay of the said post for the period he performs the duties and discharges the responsibilities of the post. In the case before this court, there is no any 8 suggestion from the side of the Government respondents that the transfer and posting of the petitioner as an in-charge Principal was in violation or contrary to any rules. 16. Relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in Judhistir Mohanty (supra), wherein the Apex Court held that if the Government for want of candidate, directed an officer in the lower cadre to perform the duties of that post in the higher cadre, during the period, the incumbent would be entitled to payment of the salary attached to the post if the incumbent had performed the duties in that post, in Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer (supra), wherein the Apex Court held that the tribunal was justified in ordering payment of salary to the respondents for the post of Junior Engineer with effect from 1990 when he was made to work on that post and in Jaswant Singh v. Punjab Poultry Field Staff Association & ors (supra), wherein the Apex court allowed the concerned appellant, even though he was not qualified under the relevant rules to get promotions as Chick Sexer, to get the pay and allowance attributable to the post during the period he carried out such duties, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the pay and allowances attributable to the post of Principal of a Higher Secondary School for the period for which he works as such without any extra remuneration. 17. 17. Apart from the above said finding, it is brought to the notice of this court that the Government respondents have allowed some in charge A.Is of School to enjoy the regular pay scale of A.I. of School with effect from their respective dates of appointments on the ground that they were assigned with the same duties and responsibilities of a regularly appointed A.I. of School. Copies of the relevant orders are At Annexures-A/8 and A/9. Further, it is brought to the notice of this court that in compliance with the orders of this court passed in similar situations, the Government respondents have issued orders allowing those, who have been holding their respective posts on in-charge basis, to get the pay and allowances of regularly appointed incumbents. Copies of such orders are enclosed at Annexures-A/18 and A/19. Since the Government Respondents have already granted relief similar to one sought by the petitioner to others in similar situations, the said relief is not to be denied to the petitioner inasmuch as denial of it will be discriminatory, unfair and unjust. 18. In the result, having regards to all relevant considerations, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the respondents shall pay the 9 pay and allowances of a Principal of a Higher Secondary School to the petitioner from 21.6 .1999 till he discharges the duties and responsibilities of a Principal. All dues in terms of this order must be paid to the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of this Judgment and order after adjustment of payment already made to the petitioner. No order as to costs.