JUDGMENT : R.N. Biswal, J. - The Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the opp. parties to allow him the salary in the scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2600 with effect from 1.4.91 at par with the Technical Assistant. 2. As per the writ petition, the Petitioner is a Science Graduate (P.C.M. ) with Post Graduate Diploma Application (hereinafter referred to as "PGDCA"). On being duly selected, he was initially appointed on 12.5.1989 as an Investigator in the Department of OCEAN Field Station of the Orissa Remote Sensing Application Centre (hereinafter referred as "ORSAC in short"). On 27th November of the same year, he was directed to undergo training on Soil Mapping and Survey. Accordingly, he underwent the said training and after completion thereof, was deployed as an Investigator to Subarnarekha Irrigation Project. Pursuant to office order No. 1169 dated 1.4.1990, he was appointed as a Field assistant in Subarnarekha Irrigation Project on a consolidated salary of Rs. 500/? per month and continued as such till he was appointed as a Junior Investigator vide order No. 1942 on 31.5.90 (Annexure-1 ) in the scale of pay of Rs. 780/- to 1160/? with usual D.A. and other allowances in the same Irrigation Project. However, because of his qualification, experience and training, the Petitioner was directed to work in the Soil and Environmental Laboratory and accordingly he worked there since his joining as Junior Investigator. 3. In the proceeding of 9th Governing Body meeting of the ORSAC held on 4.4.1990, one post of Technical Assistant was created in the Project Centre for the environmental study in the pay scale of Rs. 1050-2085 (1989 scale of pay), and it was also decided in the same meeting that the newly created post would be filled up from amongst the incumbents occupying project post (Annexure-2).The Petitioner having been found sui table for the post of Technical Assistant in the project centre for Environmental Study, was absorbed and posted there by the Chief Executive, opp. party No. 2 vide office order No. 939 dated 30.3.91 but no such order was issued to him. However, he continued to work as such with effect from 1.4.91, but was not given the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600/? attached to the post of Technical Assistant, instead he was being paid the scale of Rs. 950-1500/-. party No. 2 vide office order No. 939 dated 30.3.91 but no such order was issued to him. However, he continued to work as such with effect from 1.4.91, but was not given the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600/? attached to the post of Technical Assistant, instead he was being paid the scale of Rs. 950-1500/-. He made several representations to the authorities with prayer to allow him the salary attached to the post of Technical Assistant, but all ended in fiasco. To his is may, the Petitioner found in the ORSAC pay bill for the month of December, 1995 that he had been shown at Column No. 34 as Data Technician in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/-, though he was never appointed as such. Immediately, thereafter, the Petitioner made a representation to the authorities to rectify the mistake. It appears that because of his representation, he was posted in Computer Cluster vide office order No. 1924 dated 1. 8.94 pursuant to which he joined in the Computer cluster on the same date. 4. It is the specific case of the Petitioner that since he is eligible, qualified, experienced and a trained hand, he was taken into the post of Technical assistants, but while other incumbents in the similar cadre are getting the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600/-, he has been discriminated, hence the writ petition. 5. Opp. party No. 2 in his counter affidavit stated that the Petitioner was not entitled to the scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2600/- inasmuch as he was not appointed in the post of Technical Assistant nor he was holding the same post prior to the 14th meeting of the Governing Body of ORSAC. Since the date of his initial appointment, the Petitioner was working under different project modes, which were coterminous with the project itself. The Petitioner was engaged in ORSAC from 12.5.89 to 25.7.89 on daily wage basis as an Investigator. Thereafter, he was temporarily appointed as Field Assistant under Subarnarekha Irrigation Project for 45 days with effect from 1.4.90 in the scale of pay of Rs. 780-1160/? (Revised to Rs. 950-1500/- ). All his appointments being project mode appointments were coterminous with the project. Thereafter, he was temporarily appointed as Field Assistant under Subarnarekha Irrigation Project for 45 days with effect from 1.4.90 in the scale of pay of Rs. 780-1160/? (Revised to Rs. 950-1500/- ). All his appointments being project mode appointments were coterminous with the project. By virtue of order No. 939 dated 30.3.91, the Petitioner was temporarily allowed to work as Technical Assistant against a temporary vacancy under the Centre for environmental study project from 1.4,91 to 31.5.91 in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/-. This arrangement was made for the purpose of disbursement of his salary. During the said period of two months, he was drawing salary in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/-, i.e., the scale,of Junior Investigator. As such, his absorption against the post of Technical Assistant does not arise. A technical sub-committee was formed for examining the service records of the employees and to undertake screening process for determining the suitability of various jobs held by them and to prepare a list of employees found sui table and suggest fitment of them in the care and project posts having scale of pay and consolidated pay. The Technical committee was also conferred with the status of departmental promotion committee. The report submitted by the technical sub? committee was accepted in 15th Governing Body meeting of the ORSAC held on 29.11.96 and accordingly the Petitioner was re-designated as Technical Assistant-A (Computer Operation) in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300/- ), as such, the prayer of the Petitioner for the scale of Rs.1400-2600/? is not at all sustainable and accordingly opp. party No. 2 prays to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that Petitioner joined on 12.5.1989 as an Investigator under ORSAC. On 17.11.1989 he was directed to undergo training in soil mapping and completed the same successfully. On 31. 5.1990 he was appointed as Junior Investigator in regular scale of pay of Rs. 780-1160/? - (Revised pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/- ) vide Annexure-5. In the 9th Governing Body meeting of ORSAC held on 4.4.1990, the post of Technical Assistant was created in the newly set up Project Center for Environmental Study in the scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2600/- (Revised scale of pay of Rs. 5000? 8000/- ). It was also decided that the said post would be filled up from amongst the incumbents occupying project posts. 1400-2600/- (Revised scale of pay of Rs. 5000? 8000/- ). It was also decided that the said post would be filled up from amongst the incumbents occupying project posts. Since the Petitioner was holding a Project post and was qualified for the post of Technical Assistant, he was engaged in that post for the period 1.4.1991 to 31.5.1991, but he was allowed to continue as such till report of the Fitment Committee was submitted and the Petitioner was regularized as Technical Assistant (A) in the scale of pay of Rs.1400-2300/- in the new staffing pattern. To fortify his submission, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner drew our attention to Annexures-3 and 6, the sub-committee report and the salary certificate of the Petitioner respectively, which show that the Petitioner was working as Technical Assistant at least till 7.5.93 when the sub? committee completed its report. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further drew our attention to Annexure-7, where the Sub-Committee on 27.9.1995 held that it was brought to their notice that there were six employees including the Petitioner, who were holding post of higher responsibility in comparison to their qualification, but they were underpaid, and, as such, it was recommended that the Governing. Body would consider their cases by creating/upgrading the posts in commensurate with their qualification and according to the necessity of ORSAC. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that all these materials go to show that the Petitioner was officiating as Technical Assistant from 1.4.1991 till the new staffing pattern came into existence. But in the 14th Governing Body meeting, held on 19.9.1996 (Annexure-B) the post of Technical Assistant which was a single grade in the scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2600 was classified into Technical Assistant (A) in the scale of pay of Rs.1400? 2300/-, Technical Assistant (B) in the scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2600/- and Technical Assistant (C) in the scale of pay of Rs. 1640-2900. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner next submitted that the Petitioner was officiating as Technical Assistant in the scale of pay of Rs.1400-2600/- till he was regularized, though in fact he was not being paid that scale. So, according to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner is entitled to get the scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2600/- as Technical Assistant (B) instead of the scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2300/? So, according to Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner is entitled to get the scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2600/- as Technical Assistant (B) instead of the scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2300/? as Technical Assistant (A), irrespective of his engagement as Technical Assistant either on officiating or temporary basis. In support of his submission, he relied on the decisions in the case of P.C. Kunhikrishnan Nabmblar and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 1965, Kerala 84 and Arun Kumar Chatterjee Vs. South Eastern Railway and Others, . 8. In the decision of P.C. Kunhikrishnan (supra), a Full Bench of Kerala High Court held that: In the ordinary sense of the words in the context of service "to officiate" is to "perform the duties of an office" and "substantive" means "permanent". Substantive service therefore means service as a permanent holder of an office, and, in 'contradistinction, officiating service means service rendered as a non-permanent holder. In fact all service which is not substantive is officiating and it seems clear that the words "whether officiating or substantive are used in the Regulation to mean whether substantive or not 9. In the case of A.K. Chatterjee (supra), the Apex Court held: According to its ordinary connotation, the word 'officiating' is generally used when a servant having held one post permanently or substantively, is appointed to a post in a higher rank, but not permanently or substantively, while still retaining his lien on his substantive post i. e. officiating in that post till his confirmation. Such officiating appointment may be made when there is a temporary vacancy in a higher post due to the death or retirement of the incumbent or otherwise. In contrast, the word 'temporary' usually denotes a person appointed in the civil service for the first time and the appointment is not permanent but temporary i.e. for the time being, with no right to the post. 10. The view taken by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of P.C. Kunhikrishnan Nabmblar (supra) as quoted above was on the basis of interpretation of Regulation 4 of Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by promotion) Regulations, 1955. In view of the decision of the Apex Court, in the case of Arun Kumar (supra), we are of the view that the words 'officiating and temporary' connotes two different meaning. In view of the decision of the Apex Court, in the case of Arun Kumar (supra), we are of the view that the words 'officiating and temporary' connotes two different meaning. As would be discussed later, the two decisions cited above would be of no help to the Petitioner. Admittedly, the ORSAC has no rule governing the recruitment and conditions of service of its employees. The Resolutions; Memorandum and Circulars of the ORSAC reveal that the service conditions of its employees would be at par with the Government employees. It is also admitted in the counter affidavit filed by the opp. party No. 2 that in absence of any specific instructions and guidelines the Organization follows the Government instructions. So, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Orissa Service Code is being followed by the ORSAC, Rule 31 of which defines officiate as follows: A Government servant officiates in a post when he performs the duties of a post on which another person holds a lien. A Govt. servant may, however be appointed to officiate in a vacant post on which no other person holds a lien, by the authority competent to make substantive appointment to the vacant post 11. As stated earlier, the Petitioner was appointed as a Technical Assistant for the period 1.4.1991 to 31. 5.1991. But, some documents show that he was working as such till his services were regularized as Technical Assistant (A). As per the submission of Learned Counsel for the opp. parties the Petitioner was allowed to work as Technical Assistant from 1.4.1991 to 31.5.1991 for his own interest to regularize his payment, and thereafter, he was reverted back to his original post of Junior Investigator. As per Rule 31 of the Orissa Service Code as quoted above, the authority competent to make substantive appointment to a vacant post can order an employee to officiate in that post where no one holds a lien. In the present case, admittedly, no one held lien in the post of Technical Assistant, in which the Petitioner is claiming to have worked on officiating basis till his regularization. In the present case, admittedly, no one held lien in the post of Technical Assistant, in which the Petitioner is claiming to have worked on officiating basis till his regularization. So, even if it is presumed that Petitioner was working as Technical Assistant from 1.4.1991 on officiating basis till he was regularized in the post of Technical Assistant (A) still then in absence of any order in respect of officiating appointment by competent authority, legally it cannot be said that he was officiating in the post of Technical Assistant beyond 31.5.1991. Moreover, engagement of an employee in a post whether on officiating or temporary basis, cannot create a right in favour of the said employee for that post. 12. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Petitioner was officiating in the post of Technical Assistant in the scale of pay of Rs. 1400? 2600/- when his services were regularized in the scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2300/-, as such, it visited with civil consequence amounting to reduction in rank. As held earlier, it cannot be said that the Petitioner was officiating in the post of Technical Assistant, as such, there is no question of civil consequence amounting to reduction in rank in regularizing the service of the Petitioner as Technical assistant (A). 13. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that Shri D.P. Mohanty, Shri Ekalabya Das and Shri Arun Kumar Mohanty, who stand on similar footing to that of the Petitioner were regularized in the post of Technical Assistant (B) while the Petitioner was discriminated. Learned Addl. Govt. advocate repudiated that submission stating that Shri D.P. Mohanty and two others, stated above, were senior to the Petitioner and they were also more experienced than him; as such the Petitioner cannot be equated with them. Mr. D.P. Mohanty was initially appointed in the post of Technician on 4.8.1988, and since 1.6.1990 till his fitment he was working as Technical Assistant except for the period 1.4.91 to 31.5.1991, when he was temporarily allowed to officiate as Programming Asst. The Petitioner was temporarily allowed to work in the post of Technical Asst. during the vacancy of that post caused due to engagement of Sri Mohanty as Programming Assistant but he was drawing the pay scale attached to Jr. Investigator. The scale of pay of D.P. Mohanty was Rs. 1400? 2600/? whereas the scale of pay of the Petitioner was Rs. during the vacancy of that post caused due to engagement of Sri Mohanty as Programming Assistant but he was drawing the pay scale attached to Jr. Investigator. The scale of pay of D.P. Mohanty was Rs. 1400? 2600/? whereas the scale of pay of the Petitioner was Rs. 950-1500/? at the relevant time. Shri D.P. Mohanty was also senior to the Petitioner inasmuch as his initial appointment was on 4.8.1988 whereas the appointment of Petitioner was on 12.5.89. Similarly Shri Arun Kumar Mohanty was initially appointed as investigator on 1.1.1987 on daily wage basis and on 4.6.1987 he was appointed as Lab-cum? Field Asst. in the consolidated pay of Rs. 750/? per month and thereafter he was appointed as Junior Clerk? cum-typist from 1.9.1987 to 15.10.1987 in the pay scale of Rs. 780-1160/-. On 1.8.1988 he was appointed as Senior Technical (Computer) on probation in the same scale of pay of Rs. 780-1160/? for one year. The post of Senior Technician (Computer) is equivalent to Technical Asst. For the period 1.1.1989 to 30.6.1989 Shri Arun Kumar Mohanty was appointed as Technical assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 840-1345/- and from 4.7.1989 to 30.9.1989 as R.S. Asst. in the same scale of pay and continued as such till 31.10.1989, where after he was appointed as Technical Assistant till 29.5.1990 in the pay scale of Rs. 935-1530/-. Again on 1.6.1990 he was appointed as Project Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 1050-2085/- and got five increments and his pay scale was revised to Rs. 1400-2600/-, whereas the pay scale of Shri Jena (petitioner) was revised from Rs. 780-1160/- to Rs. 950-1500/? as Junior investigator, at the relevant time. Likewise Shri Ekalabya Das was initially appointed as investigator on 1.7.1987 and on 4.6.1987 he was appointed as Lab-cum-Field Assistant on consolidated pay of Rs. 750/-. From 1.9.1987 to 31.12.1988, he was appointed as Junior Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 780?1160/-, and from 1.1.1989 to 30.6.1989 as Senior Technician (Computer) in the pay scale of Rs. 1050-2085/-. From 4.7.1989 to 31.10.1989 he was appointed as Senior Technical Assistant (Cartography) and from 1.1.1989 to 29.5.1990 as Senior Technician (Computer) in the same scale of pay. On 1.6.1989 Shri Das was appointed as Programme Assistant on probation for one year and thereafter from 1.3.1991 to 31.5.1991 he was appointed as Senior Technician in the revised scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2600/-. On 1.6.1989 Shri Das was appointed as Programme Assistant on probation for one year and thereafter from 1.3.1991 to 31.5.1991 he was appointed as Senior Technician in the revised scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2600/-. The nature of work attached to the post of Senior Technician Assistant (Programming) is equivalent to Technical Assistant. So as per the submission of learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, considering the seniority and experience of the aforesaid three employees they were appointed as Technical Assistant (B) and the Petitioner as Technical Assistant-(A). 14. The incumbents Shri D.P. Mohanty, Ekalabya Das and Shri Arun Kumar Mohanty being senior to the Petitioner and they being more experienced than him, have rightly been appointed as Technical Assistant (B) in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600/- and the Petitioner also has been rightly appointed as Technical Assistant(A). 15. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that admittedly the Petitioner worked as Technical Assistant for the period 1.4.1991 to 31.5.1991 in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600/- but he had not been paid that scale. Per contra, learned Addl.Govt. Advocate contended that in order to facilitate disbursement of salary to the Petitioner he was adjusted in the post of Technical Assistant for the aforesaid period or else he would have been removed from service. So he cannot take advantage of the sympathetic attitude of the authorities. 16. In the decision Selvaraj Vs. Lt. Governor of Island, Port Blair and Others, the apex Court held as follows: It is not in dispute that the Appellant looked 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 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 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 the 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 l640-2900. 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. 17. In view of the aforesaid decision, the Petitioner is entitled to get the scale of Technical Assistant for the period 1.4.1991 to 31.5.1991 which admittedly has not been paid to him. So the differential salary of the Petitioner for the period 1.4.1991 to 31. 5.1991 shall be worked out and paid to him within three months hence. 18. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed with the aforesaid observation. 19. No costs. B.P. Das, J. 20. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed