Judgment Vijay Manohar Sahai, J.—We have heard Mr. Shaqeel Qureshi, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. V.A. Mansuri, learned advocate holding brief of Mr. M.T.M. Hakim, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 20.09.2005 passed in Original Application No.131 of 2005. The respondent herein has challenged the order dated 17.1.2005 by which his representation was rejected by the petitioner authorities wherein the respondent was claiming pay and allowances of the higher post of Manager RLO (HSG.I) on which he has worked from 1.9.2004 to 30.11.2004 with consequential benefits. 3. The Tribunal in paragraphs 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 has held as under:- “19. The Apex Court in Selvaraj’s case has allowed the pay of post actually held by him on the principle of “Quantum Meruit”. The Apex Court in Hari Om Sharma’s case has observed that if a person is put to officiate on a higher post with greater responsibility, he is normally entitled to salary of that post. It held that inclusion of condition that he would not claim salary for the higher post would be contrary to law as also against the public policy. It would be therefore unenforceable. 20. The respondents on the other hand have relied on the decision of this Tribunal in O.A.No.231 of 2004. The applicant therein was as sub-postmaster in LSG grade, who had claim officiating allowance for working as a postmaster in HSG grade. He had not produced any order of officiating promotion. His case would also be governed by a different entry of the schedule. Hence this is distinguishable. 21. Another question that may arise as to whether FR 22 I(a)(i) by adding an increment in case he is entitled to the pay of the higher post. DG (P&T) letter 22-I/89-PE-I dated 21.10.92 quoted at note 17 below FR 22 in Swamy’s Compilation of FR/SR shows that benefits under FR 22 I(a)(i) are also note in this connection that the Ministry of Finance O.M.No.10(1)/E.III/88 dated 13.9.1991 quoted at note 6 in the same compilation provides that even in cases of in situ promotion where assumption of higher duties is not involved the benefit of FR 22 (I)(a)(i) will be admissible but such benefit will not be allowed again at the time of functional promotion to the same scale. Paragraph 9 of the conditions for grant of benefit under ACP scheme, introduced vide DOPT O.M.35034/1/97-Estt.(D) dt.0.8.99 provides that the benefit of FR 22(I)(a)(i) subject to minimum of 100 made available at the time of ACP promotion will be final and no further pay fixation benefit shall be available at the time of regular promotion. The policy followed by Dept.of Posts is not brought on record either by the applicant or the respondents. 22. Summing up we find that the post of Manager (RLO) has been upgraded to HSG I w.e.f. 26.07.2001 and one post of PA is abolished. A perusal of the recruitment rules establishes that posts of LSG/HSG II officials in the RLO is to be filled up by clerks with 10 years/LSG officials with 3 years service working in that office. The some policy for filling up Manager (RLO)’s post when no HSG.II exists in the office. The earlier incumbent superannuated on 31.08.2004. The department had ample time to plan for his successor. The order posting the applicant does not show as to what duties he should discharge and what duties he should not discharge as required under DOPT circular. His representation was rejected solely on the ground that he has not put in three years service as HSG.II. Other aspects have not been considered. The Apex Court decision in Hari Om Sharma and Selvaraj’s case makes it absolutely clear that the applicant is entitled to the salary of the post. 23. In view of what has been discussed above, the O.A. is allowed and order dated 17.01.2005 is set aside. The applicant is entitled to salary of the post of Manager (RLO). His pay will be fixed having regard to what has been discussed in Paras 13 & 21 above. The refixation of pay and the redetermination of DCRG/Pension/Commuted value of pension/Leave Encashment should be done within 3 months and arrears paid within one month thereafter. In case the payment is not made within the 4 months period interest at 9% will be payable beyond this period. No order as to costs.” 4. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal and we do not find any reason to take a different view than what has been taken by the Tribunal. 5. This writ petition is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed.