Judgment S.K.Katriar, J. 1. Heard Mr. Chandrashekhar for the petitioner, and Dr. Sada land Jha for the Patna High Court. 2. According to the writ petition, the petitioner had joined the Patna High Court as a lower division assistant or 22.12.1960. He was promoted to the post of Administrative Officer, and thereafter to the post of Assistant Registrar with effect from 31.11.1956. It is further stated in the writ petition that one post of Deputy Registrar fell vacant with effect from 1.1.1998 and the petitioner was directed to act in that capacity. He did act in that capacity with effect from 1.1.1998 as per the charge report of one Ram Awatar Singh, the out-going Deputy Registrar (Establishment), on account of his superannuation with effect from 31.12.1997. A copy of the same is to be Found in the original record placed before me. The petitioner was substantively promoted to the post of Deputy Registrar (Establishment) by order dated 16.10.1998 (Annexure-2). The petitioner submits that in view of his officiation on the post of Deputy Registrar (Establishment) with effect from 1.1.1998, he should be given the benefit of continuous officiation with effect from the said date. It is further stated in the writ petition that he also acted as the Joint Registrar with effect from 1.5.1998, was interviewed for the post on 8.12.1998, but he superannuated with effect from 31.12.1998, while substantively functioning as Deputy Registrar , before the final decision for promotion to the post of Joint Registrar could be taken. It is prayed that the respondents may be directed to give him the benefit of being appointed as Joint Registrar with effect from 1.5.1998. The petitioners representation dated 9.2.1999 (Annexure 3), praying for both the reliefs, has been rejected by Hon ble the Chief Justice and conveyed to him by communication dt. 7.8.1999 (Annexure 4), issued under the signature of the Registrar General, and impugned herein. 3. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit, and have also placed before me the original file maintained in the High Court office in this behalf 4. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to me that consequent upon the retirement of Ram Awatar Singh, the previous incumbent, the post of Deputy Registrar (Establishment), fell vacant with effect from 31.12.1997. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to me that consequent upon the retirement of Ram Awatar Singh, the previous incumbent, the post of Deputy Registrar (Establishment), fell vacant with effect from 31.12.1997. As a temporary arrangement, the petitioner was directed to function on that post. He was substantively promoted to the post of Deputy Registrar (Establishment ) with effect from 16.10.1998 (Annexure-2). The admitted position thus is that the petitioner had functioned as Deputy Registrar (Establishment) from 1.1.98 to 16.10.98 as a temporary incumbent, was substantively promoted with effect from 16.10.1998, and there was no break. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of continuous officiation 01 the post of Deputy Registrar (Estt.) with effect from 1.1.98. The position would have been different, and this case would have been covered by the following observations in the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in - (Ramakant Shripad Sinai Advalpalkar V/s. Union of India and Ors.), if he were not substantively promoted to the said bost and without break :- The arrangement? contemplated by this order plainly does not amount to a promotion of the appellant to the post of Treasurer. The distinction between a situation where a Government servant is promoted to a higher post and one where he is merely asked to discharge the duties of the higher post is too clear to require any reiteration. 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 a called a "charge allowance". Such situations are contemplated where exigences 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 the duties of the higher post essentially as a stop-gap arrangement. 5. The petitioners case is really supported by the following judgments of the Supreme Court:- (i) - (Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer Chandigarh V/s. Hari Om Sharma and Ors.) (ii) - (The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers Association and Ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors.). 5. The petitioners case is really supported by the following judgments of the Supreme Court:- (i) - (Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer Chandigarh V/s. Hari Om Sharma and Ors.) (ii) - (The Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers Association and Ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors.). The following observations in paragraph 44(B) of the judgment are illuminating :- (44)(B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted. 6 I am mindful of the stand taken by the High Court in its counter affidavit that the petitioner was not the senior-most person on 1.1.98. Lal Bihari Pandey was the senior-most Assistant Registrar and was then posted at the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court and, therefore, the petitioner (who was posted in Patna) was asked to function as Deputy Registrar (Estt.) as a temporary arrangement with effect from 1.1.98. Lal Bihari Pandev retired on . 30.6.98. But this cannot prevent the petitioner from getting the benefit of continuous officiation because, as already stated hereinabove, he was substantively promoted to the post on 16.10.98 (Annexure 2) and without break. Secondly, the counter affidavit does not state whether or not Lal Bihari Pandey was considered for promotion or, if considered, was found fit or not. Paragraphs 6 to 8 of 1 he counter affidavit of the High Court are set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference :- 6. That it is noteworthy to state that while the petitioner was posted as Assistant Registrar of the Court, he was asked to hold the additional charge of the post of Deputy Registrar on retirement, of its incumbent, namely. Ram Awtar Singh on 31.12.1997 by virtue of his being the seniormost Assistant Registrar at Patna as per stop-gap arrangement. He held this additional charge till he was promoted to the post of Deputy Registrar w.e.f. 16.10.98. 7. That the petitioner also held the additional charge of one more post i.e. the post of Joint Registrar (Administration) on the retirement of its incumbent, Upendra Mohan Sinha, and he continued to hold the additional charge of the post of Joint Registrar till his retirement on 31.12.1998. This was also a stop-gap arrangement. 8. 7. That the petitioner also held the additional charge of one more post i.e. the post of Joint Registrar (Administration) on the retirement of its incumbent, Upendra Mohan Sinha, and he continued to hold the additional charge of the post of Joint Registrar till his retirement on 31.12.1998. This was also a stop-gap arrangement. 8. That it is further stated that the post of Deputy Registrar (Establishment) fell vacant with effect from 1.1.1998 on the retirement of Ran Awtar Singh. The matter relating to promotion of suitable-person to the vacant post of Deputy Registrar was taken up for consideration and after full processing, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Deputy Registrar vacated by the retirement of Ram Awtar Singh by notification dated 16.10.1998 (Ann. 2) w.e.f. the date he assumed charge as such. The petitioner took over charge of the post from the same date, i.e. 16.10.98. 7. There is no material on record to show that Lal Bihari Pandey ever complained of the situation. He never acted as Deputy Registrar was never substantively promoted as such, and the substantive promotion took place after his retirement. 8. I must record that the learned counsel For the petitioner, during the course of his submissions, gave up his case for promotion to the post of Joint Reqistrar. 9. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order in so far as it relates to the issue of Deputy Reqistrar, is substituted by the present order. The petitioner shall be given the benefit of continuous officiation on the post of Deputy Registrar Estt. ) in the Patna High Court from 1.1.98. He will be entitled to the consequential benefits including the differential amount of salary and revision of post-retirement benefits.