Judgment :- Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to fix his scale of pay in the post Municipal Commissioner in which he posted and acted as Grade-III, Grade-II, lection grade, special grade to which he posted and acted and pay al I the arrears due him in view of the above refixation wit short time. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Municipal C missioner Grade III on 22.2.1990 and his vice was regularised on 15.3.1993. Subsequently he was posted in the promotion posts in the following grades as follows: Grade III - On 14.2.1990 by N.O.Ms.No.163 M.A. & W.S. Department, posting petitioner at Kuzhithurai Municipality Grade-III Municipal Commissioner. Grade-I On 12.5.1995 by G.O. D.No. 142 MA & WS Department, posting the petitioner Theni Allinagaram Municipality as Grade­ Municipal Commissioner. Selection Grade- On 25.4.1997 by D.No.180 M.A. & W.S. Department, post­ petitioner at Rajapalayam Municipality as Grade-III Municipal Commissioner. Selection Grade - On 5.11.1997 by G.O.Ms.No.549 M.A. & W.S. Department, posting the petitioner at Rajapalayam Musicality as Grade-III Municipal Commissioner. Special Grade - On 13.8.2001 by G.O.Ms.No.563 M.A. & W.S. Department, posting the petitioner at Vellore Municipality which is special grade Municipality. Special Grade - On 19.7.2002 by G.O.D.No.288 M.A. & W.S. Department, post­ing the petitioner at Dindigul Municipality as Municipal Commissioner and he is continuing there. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though he was given promotion as above by various orders right from 14.2.1990 to 19.7.2002, the salary for the period for which he worked in the promotional posts, was not id and he was paid only the salary of the Municipal Commissioner Grade-II. According to the petitioner, the scale of pay applicable to the promotional posts held by the petitioner are as follows: Post - Municipality -Scale of pay Municipal Commissioner - Grade-II - 5500-175-9000 Municipal Commissioner - Grade-I - 8000-275-13500 Municipal Commissioner - Senior Grade-II - 9100-275-14050 Municipal Commissioner - Special Grade-II - 10000-325-15200 The said salary difference having not been paid, petitioner has filed the original application before the Tribunal, which was subsequently transferred to this Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cited the following decisions in support of the case of the petitioner: Selvaraj v. Lt. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cited the following decisions in support of the case of the petitioner: Selvaraj v. Lt. Governor of Island, Port Blair, (1998) 4 S.C.C. 291 Secretary-Cum-Chief Engineer v. Hari Om Sharma, (1998) 5 S.C.C.87; Jaswant Singh v. Punjab Poultry Field Staff Association, (2002) 1 S.C.C. 261 ; Union of India v. Central Administrative Tribunal, (2004) 1, A.T.J. 24. Relying upon the above decisions, the learned counsel argued that the petitioner is entitled to get salary for the periods he worked in the higher posts. 5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the promotion was only temporary and in some of the orders of promotion there is a specific condition that on higher salary will be paid. 6. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate. 7. A perusal of the orders of promotion issued in G.O.Ms.No.163 dated 14.2.1990 discloses that there is no condition that higher salary will not be paid. Likewise, in all other Government Orders also, except G.O.Ms.No.563, dated 13.9.2001, there is no such condition. Only in G.O.Ms.No.563 dated 15.8.2001 there is a condition that higher salary will not be paid and shall not be claimed by the petitioner. 8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the decision reported in Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer v. Hari Om Sharma, (1998) 5 S.C.C.87, in para.8 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such condition imposed by the Government is invalid and contrary to Sec.23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. For proper appreciation, para.8 is extracted hereunder: "Learned counsel for the appellant attempted to contend that when the respondent was promoted in stop-gap arrangement as Junior Engineer-1, he had given an Undertaking to the appellant that on the basis of stop-gap arrangement, he would not claim promotion as of right nor would he claim any benefit pertaining to that post. The argument, to say the least, is preposterous. Apart from the fact that the Government in its capacity as a model employer cannot be permitted to raise such an argument, the undertaking, which is said to constitute an agreement between the parties, cannot be enforced at law. The argument, to say the least, is preposterous. Apart from the fact that the Government in its capacity as a model employer cannot be permitted to raise such an argument, the undertaking, which is said to constitute an agreement between the parties, cannot be enforced at law. The respondent being an employee of the appellant had to break his period of stagnation although, as we have found earlier, he was the only person amongst the non-diploma-holders available for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer-1 and was, therefore, likely to be considered for promotion in his own right. An agreement that if a person is promoted to the higher post or put to officiate on that post or, as in the instant case, a stop gap arrangement is made to place him on the higher post, he would not claim higher salary or other attendant benefits would be contrary to law and also against public policy. It would, therefore, be unenforceable in view of Sec.23 of the Contract Act, 1872." Therefore, the submission of the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner having been put on notice that he will not be entitled to higher pay, he was denied of higher pay is unsustainable. 9. In the decision reported in Selvaraj v. Lt. Governor of Island, Port Blair, (1998) 4 S.C.C. 291 , in paras.3 and 4 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the pay of higher admissible when an employee is looking duties of that post, the employee is entitled get the higher post if admissible when an employee is looking after duties of that post, the employee is entitled to get the higher post pay even though the post is not to be treated as promotion. 10. In the other judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner which is reported in Jaswant Singh v. Punjab Poultry Field Staff Association, (2002) 1 SCC 261 , the Supreme Court held that even if a person promoted is not qualified to hold the post, but discharged the duties in the promotion post, he is entitled to get the pay and allowances admissible to the promotion post. 11. The above referred judgments of the Supreme Court are followed by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Union of India v. Central Administrative Tribunal (2004)] A.T.J.24. 12. 11. The above referred judgments of the Supreme Court are followed by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Union of India v. Central Administrative Tribunal (2004)] A.T.J.24. 12. The other objection that the promotion was given only as stop-gap arrangement is also an answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras.6 and 7 of the decision reported in Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer v. Hari Om Sharma, (1998) 5 S.C.C.87. Therefore the said objection is also unsustainable. 13. The above referred settled position of law of reveals that the respondents are bound to pay salary to the petitioner for the periods for which he worked in the higher post. Consequently the difference in pay shall be-calculated and paid to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs.