JUDGMENT SATYENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, J.--Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the opposite parties. Through this petition, the petitioner has challenged the condition imposed in the order dated 26.5.1997 disallowing the salary of the post of AC Plant Engineer to the petitioner although it is submitted that the petitioner was redesignated and allowed to work on the said post under the garb of re-designation. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Electrician cum AIC Mechanic in the Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Akademi, Fursatganj, District Rae Bareli ( herein after referred to as the 'Akademi') on 29.2.1988 in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/-. It is stated that in the year 1993 the petitioner was deputed on account of his good work on AIC Plant. It is submitted that the petitioner contiimed to work on the post of AC Plant Mechanic but ultimately on 26.5.1997 there was re-designation of the post of the petitioner as AC Plant Engineer and the petitioner was deputed to work on the said post having been re-designated as AC Plant Engineer. After the said re-designation, it is stated that the petitioner started discharging his duties on the post of AC Plant Engineer with rider in the order dated 26.5.1997, wherein it was provided that there will be no change in the pay scale and other allowances owing to re-designation. The said rider was imposed with a view to deny the salary to the petitioner for the post of AC Plant Engineer for which he was deputed to work. After imposition of the said rider the petitioner made several representations but the said representations were not paid any heed and ultimately the representation of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 21.2.2000 (Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition) upholding the validity of the said rider and also indicating that Finance Committee constituted by the Ministry of Civil Aviation has re-designated the petitioner as AC Plant Engineer without any change in the pay scale with prior approval of the Governing Council. The said order has been subjected to challenge in the present writ petition. 3. The said order has been subjected to challenge in the present writ petition. 3. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that after the post of AC Plant Engineer was abolished in the Akademi, the petitioner was entrusted the duties of AC Plant Engineer in the year 1997 and since then he is discarding the duties of AC Plant Engineer efficiently without any officer over and above to him as AC Plant Engineer. It is submitted that the said re-designation was done with a view to fill up the gap and the vacuum created by the AC Plant Engineer and thereby assigning the duties of the said post to the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is noting on record to indicate that the post of AC Plant Engineer was not continuing. In fact no person apart from the petitioner was working on the post of AC Plant Engineer after the regular incumbent Mahim Jain, who was working as AC Plant Engineer, has left the Akademi. The petitioner was deputed to look after the work of AC Plant in place of Mahim Jain and he was also posted as AC Plant Engineer with a rider that he will not be entitled to the salary of the post of AC Plant Engineer. His further submission is that the rider imposed by the opposite parties is illegal and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and it is an unlawful labour practice. The opposite parties are duty bound to pay salary to the petitioner of the post of AC Plant Engineer on which he is discharging his duties after ouster of Mahim Jain irrespective of the fact that he has no right on the post of AC Plant Engineer. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions to substantive his claim: 1. Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh v. Hari Om Sharma and others1. 2. Beena Mishra (Smt.) v. U.P. Development Systems Corporation Ltd. and another2. 3. Smt. P. Grover v. State of Haryana and another3. 1. 1998 (79) FLR 657 (SC). 2. (2007) 1 UPLBEC 395. 3. 1983 (47) FLR 320 (SC). 4. Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh v. Hari Om Sharma and others1. 2. Beena Mishra (Smt.) v. U.P. Development Systems Corporation Ltd. and another2. 3. Smt. P. Grover v. State of Haryana and another3. 1. 1998 (79) FLR 657 (SC). 2. (2007) 1 UPLBEC 395. 3. 1983 (47) FLR 320 (SC). 4. Learned Counsel for the opposite far ties Sri O.P. Srivastava by filing counter-affidavit has stated that the post a AC Plant Engineer has come to an end and the petitioner was only entrusted with the duties of maintenance of AC Plant and at present he was not posted as AC Plant Engineer in the Akademi. This fact has been stated in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit. Only vague reply has been given in para 9 of the counter-affidavit in reply to para 8 of the the writ petition. There is no specific denial of the fact that the petitioner is not discharging the duties of AC Plant Engineer. He further stated that the post of AC Plant Engineer has been abolished and the petitioner was asked to look after the work of the post in question. It is also stated that the rider imposed by the opposite parties is justified. It is also stated that mere working on higher post would not entitle the salary to the petitioner. It is also submitted that on the application of the petitioner the post was re-designated and, therefore, the action of the opposite parities cannot be said to be illegal. In these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the salary of the post of AC Plant Engineer. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 6. It is no where denied in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner has not been discharging the duties of the post of AC Plant Engineer. It has also been stated in paras 6 and 7 of the counter-affidavit that the post of AC Plant Engineer has been abolished and, therefore, the petitioner has been assigned to look after the work of the post of AC Plant Engineer. No abolition order of the AC Plant Engineer has been placed on record to indicate that there is any decision to abolish the post of AC Plant Engineer. No abolition order of the AC Plant Engineer has been placed on record to indicate that there is any decision to abolish the post of AC Plant Engineer. It appears from the record that one Mahim Jain, AC Plant Engineer left the job in the year 1990 and thereafter petitioner was assigned the duties of the post of AC Plant Engineer. The petitioner moved an application and post of the petitioner was re-designated as AC Plant Engineer on 26.5.1997 and the petitioner was assigned the duties of the post in question. In para 6 of the writ petition, it has been specifically stated that the petitioner has been discharging the duties of AC Plant Engineer w.e.f. 26.5.1997. In para 7 of the counter-affidavit the contents of para 6 have not been denied by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties. 7. In the case of Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh (supra), the Apex Court has held as under: "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. An agreement that if a person is promoted to the higher posts 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 section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872." In the case of Beena Mishra (Smt.) (supra), this Court has held as under: "It is settled law that if an employee is discharging duties, functions and responsibilities of a post, the work of which has been entrusted to him, he shall also be entitled to salary for the said post." In the case of Smt. P. Grover (supra), the Apex Court has held as under: "All that was said in the counter-affidavit was that there were no Class I posts available and therefore, she was not entitled to be paid the salary of District Education Officer. We are unable to understand the reason given in the counter-affidavit. She was promoted to the post of District Education Officer, A Class I post on an acting basis. We are unable to understand the reason given in the counter-affidavit. She was promoted to the post of District Education Officer, A Class I post on an acting basis. Our attention was not invited to any rule which provides that promotion on an acting basis would not entitle the officer promoted to the pay of the post. In the absence of any rule justifying such refusal to pay to an officer promoted to a higher post the salary of such higher post (the validity of such a rule would be doubtful if it existed), we must hold that Smt. Gorver is entitled to be paid the salary of a District Education Officer from the date she was promoted to the post, that is July 19, 1976 until she retired from service on August 31, 1980". 8. The contents of para 6 and 7 of the counter-affidavit goes to indicate that the petitioner was discharging his duties on the post of AC Plant Engineer and, therefore, he is entitled for the salary of the post of AC Plant Engineer. The argument of the learned Counsel for the opposite parties that the post was abolished cannot be accepted as nothing is borne out from the record that there is any decision or proceedings for abolition of the post of AC Plant Engineer at any point of time with a view to deny the salary. Therefore, the rider imposed by the opposite parties was in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and was unjustified. 9. Having considered the law propounded by the Apex Court as indicated herein above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the opposie parties to pay salary of the higher post on which the petitioner has been discharging his duties w.e.f. 26.5.1997. It is further made clear that it would be open for the opposite parties to engage any other regular AC Plant Engineer, if they so wish. Writ Petition Allowed.