JUDGMENT A.M. Sapre, CJ.- This is an appeal filed by respondent (State) (sic in) W.P.(C) No.884 of 2005 under Rule 2 of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules against the Judgment and Order passed by learned Single Judge on 06.02.2008 in aforesaid writ petition. 2. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge (writ court) allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant herein to refix/revise the pension payable to the writ petitioner in terms of Pension Rules by amending his PPO. 3. So the short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether learned Single Judge (writ court) was justified in allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner and in turn was justified in issuing the impugned directions? 4. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:- The writ petitioner (respondent herein) was a State employee and at all relevant time was working on the substantive post of Accounts Officer. By administrative order dt. 2.2.1995, (annexure-A-2 to the writ petition), he was asked to look after the current charge of Chief Accounts Officer in addition to his regular duties of Accounts Officer. The order in clear terms said that the writ petitioner would look after the charge of Chief Accounts Officer in addition to his negligent duties and without payment of any extra remuneration until further orders as working arrangements. 5. The order dt. 2.2.1995 reads as under :- "ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR:MAMPUR Imphal, the 2nd February, 1995 No.60/25/85-IND: The Governor of Manipur is pleased to order that Shri R.K. Bonbihari Singh, Accounts Officer, Industries Department, Manipur will look after the current charge of Chief Accounts Officer, Directorate of Industries, Manipur in addition to his normal duties without any extra remuneration until further orders as a working arrangement. 2. Further, the Governor of Manipur is pleased to order that Shri L. Tombi Singh, retired Chief Accounts Officer will hand over his charge to Shri R.K. Bonbihari Singh Accounts Officer, Industries Department, Manipur. By orders & in the name of Governor Sd/- (A.K. Mangotra) Commissioner (IND), Govt. of Manipur" 6. Since the writ petitioner was not being paid any extra remuneration and hence he felt aggrieved and filed the writ petition being W.R No (C) No. 1683/2001 claiming higher pay scale of Chief Accounts Officer and the benefits during the period in question. The writ court by order dt. of Manipur" 6. Since the writ petitioner was not being paid any extra remuneration and hence he felt aggrieved and filed the writ petition being W.R No (C) No. 1683/2001 claiming higher pay scale of Chief Accounts Officer and the benefits during the period in question. The writ court by order dt. 21.11.2001 allowed the writ petition and directed the State that writ petitioner be paid higher pay scale of Chief Accounts Officer during the period in question. The appeal filed by the State against the order of writ Court being W.A. No 38/3003 was dismissed by order 9.6.2004. 7. The writ petitioner had in the mean time retired from the service on 31.3.1997. His pension was accordingly fixed on the basis of his pay which he was drawing as "Accounts Officer". The writ petitioner felt aggrieved of this fixation and filed the writ petition out of which this writ appeal arises contending that his pension should have been fixed on the basis of the higher pay scale which was applicable to the post of "Chief Accounts Officer" and which he was enjoying at the time of his retirement. The writ petition was contested by the State. It was inter alia contended that since the writ petitioner was holding the substantive post of "Accounts Officer" at the time of his retirement and hence in terms of Pension Rules, his pension had to be fixed on the basis of his pay drawn by him as "Accounts Officer". The writ court by impugned order allowed the writ petition and issued the impugned directions which is now under challenge in this appeal by the State. The impugned directions read as under: "For the reasons discussed above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to revise the pension of the petitioner by amending P.P.O. according to the relevant rules within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment and order." 8. Heard Mr. S. Nepolean, learned GA. for the appellants and Mr. S. Rupachandra, learned counsel for the respondent. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order with our observations made infra. 10. Heard Mr. S. Nepolean, learned GA. for the appellants and Mr. S. Rupachandra, learned counsel for the respondent. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order with our observations made infra. 10. It is not in dispute that writ petitioner was holding the substantive post of "Accounts Officer" on the date of his retirement and during that time he was only asked to look after the work of "Chief Accounts Officer" vide order dt. 2.2.1995. It is due to this reason; the writ court in the writ petition filed by the writ petition in the earlier round of litigation directed the State to pay extra remuneration i.e. the difference of pay scale of the "Accounts Officer" and "Chief Accounts Officer" to the writ petitioner. Indeed, it was held and rightly that since for some period, the writ petitioner had also discharged the duties of Chief Account Officer in addition to his regular duties of Accounts Officer and hence he was entitled to claim the extra remuneration on the basis of pay scale of "Chief Accounts Officer", for the said period. 11. In our considered view, the payment of extra remuneration even if made to the writ petitioner on the basis of pay scale of Chief Accounts Officer did not give him the status of "Chief Accounts Officer" but the writ petitioner continued to hold the post of ’Accounts Officer’. It is one thing to say that the writ petitioner was entitled to claim extra salary of the Chief Accounts Officer during the period in question and it is another thing to say that the writ petitioner was conferred with the status of the Chief Accounts Officer or that he became eligible to claim the status of the Chief Accounts Officer on such basis. 12. A right to claim the salary or extra salary for the services rendered for some time cannot be equated with the right to hold any particular post. The former does not entitle the person to claim the later right though vice versa may hold good. 13. In the present case, as would be clear from mere reading of the order dt. The former does not entitle the person to claim the later right though vice versa may hold good. 13. In the present case, as would be clear from mere reading of the order dt. 2.2.95 quoted supra the writ petitioner was holding the substantive cadre post of "Accounts Officer" when by an administrative order on 2.2.95, he was asked only for some time to look after the work of "Chief Accounts Officer." This may at best entitled him to claim extra salary for the additional duties which he discharged for the post of "Chief Accounts Officer" but it certainly did not entitle him to claim the status of the "Chief Accounts Officer" for claiming the pensionary benefits treating him to have retired from the substantive post of Chief Accounts Officer. The benefit of earlier orders passed by the writ court/appellate court was confined upto claiming of the extra salary of’ ’Chief Accounts Officer" but not the substantive status of "Chief Accounts Officer". 14. We therefore cannot concur with the reasoning of the writ court when the learned single Judge directed the State to fix the pension of the writ petitioner on the basis of the pay scale of the "Chief Accounts Officer", hi our considered opinion, it is not legally sustainable in the light of what we have held above. 15. In our opinion therefore, the writ petitioner was entitled to get all the pensionary benefits and fixation of his pension as if he retired from the post of "Accounts Officer" and hence the pay scale of Accounts Officer which was in force at the time of retirement that should have been made basis for fixation of his pension and for payment of all pensionary benefits. 16. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. As a consequence, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. ______________