Judgment :- M.M. Sundresh, J. 1. This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellants, who were the respondents in the writ petition in W.P.No.6811 of 2007, being aggrieved against the order of the learned single Judge, by which, the said writ petition filed by the respondent herein was allowed in part. 2. The respondent herein was initially working as Inspector of Survey and Land Records in Villupuram District. The second appellant sent a proposal to the first appellant for the inclusion of the name of respondent in the panel of Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records for the year 1999-2000. While the said proposal was under consideration of the first appellant, the second appellant, in and by the proceedings dated 28.11.2000, transferred and posted the respondent to Kanyakumari District and ordered to hold full additional charge as Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Nagercoil(I/c). 3. In the said order passed by the first appellant/first respondent, it has been stated that the respondent/writ petitioner would assume temporarily full additional charge of the post of Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, to the Kanyakumari District. Thereafter, the respondent/petitioner was holding the additional charge for the post of Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Nagercoil, from 08.12.2000 to 31.10.2001. In the Government Order passed in G.O.Ms.No.471, Revenue Department, dated 06.11.2001, the name of the respondent was also included in 1999-2000 panel as fit for appointment for the post of Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records. Unfortunately, as the respondent got superannuated on 31.10.2001, he was not promoted to the post of Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, as the said event occurred prior to the issuance of the said Government Order. Thereafter, the respondent has filed the writ petition seeking a writ of Certioraririfed Mandamus directing the respondents to quash paragraph 4 of the second respondent's proceedings dated 28.11.2000 with consequential direction to the respondents to regularise his appointment as Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records with effect from 08.12.2000. The consequential relief of monetary benefits including higher pensionary benefit was also sought for. 4. The consequential relief of monetary benefits including higher pensionary benefit was also sought for. 4. The learned single Judge, after hearing both sides, while rejecting the prayer as sought for by the respondent, nevertheless taking into consideration of the factual position that he was working as an Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records from 08.12.2000 to 31.10.2001, was pleased to direct the respondent to give effect to the salary in the pay scale of the said post. Challenging the said order, the present writ appeal has been filed. 5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants would contend that the respondent was working in the temporary capacity and as per Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu Government Fundamental Rules, he is not entitled for the relief granted by the learned single Judge. Inasmuch as the respondent was not appointed permanently to the post of Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, he cannot claim the pay scale applicable to the said post as a matter of right. Therefore, the writ appeal will have to be allowed. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the fact that he was holding full additional charge in the post of Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records is not in dispute. The further fact that he was working in the said capacity from 08.12.2000 to 31.10.2001 also is not in dispute. By applying the principle of "equal pay for equal work", the order of the learned single Judge will have to be confirmed. 7. A further submission has been made that even if the promotion is an officiating or stop-gap arrangement, such a payment cannot be denied when an employee is made to work in a higher post. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has made reliance upon the following judgments. (i) Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh V. Hari Om Sharma and Others (1998) 5 Supreme Court Cases 87; (ii) N.Rajasekaran Nair V. Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Fort St. George and another (2006) 2 MLJ. 420 ; and (iii) T.Thangaraj V. The Secretary to Government, Agricultural Production Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9 and another (2011) 2 CWC 610. 8. The facts narrated above are not in dispute. George and another (2006) 2 MLJ. 420 ; and (iii) T.Thangaraj V. The Secretary to Government, Agricultural Production Commissioner, Agriculture Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9 and another (2011) 2 CWC 610. 8. The facts narrated above are not in dispute. Further more, but for the superannuation, the petitioner, in fact, would have been promoted to the cadre of Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records. The only question for our consideration is as to whether the order of the learned single Judge directing the appellants to make the payment in the post of Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records for the period during which the respondent is working i.e., from 08.12.2000 to 31.10.2001, is justified or not. 9. Even though the learned Special Government Pleader has made substantial submission on Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu Government Fundamental Rules, we are of the view that the said Rule cannot be made applicable to the case on hand. Chapter VI of the Tamil Nadu Government Fundamental Rules deals with Combination of Appointments. It specifically deals with the case of the Government Servants holding additional charge whether permanent or officiating. However, it does not deal with the case of the employee holding the charge in a higher promotional post. Therefore, we are of the view that Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu Government Fundamental Rules cannot stand in the way of the first respondent getting appropriate salary in the post of Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records. 10. The matter can be looked into in a different angle as well. When the respondent was put in a higher cadre as directed by the appellants, he cannot be denied the payment of salary in the said cadre. The said issue no longer res integra. Considering the said issue in SECRETARY-CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER, CHANDIGARH V. HARI OM SHARMA AND OTHERS ((1998) 5 Supreme Court Cases 87), the Honourable Apex Court has held as follows: "6. Having regard to these facts, we are of the view that the Tribunal was fully justified in ordering that the respondent shall be promoted on the basis of "quota" fixed for non-diploma holders with 10 years of service and not on the basis of integrated seniority. The Tribunal was also justified in ordering payment of salary to the respondent for the post of Junior Engineer-I with effect from 1990 when he was made to work on that post. The Tribunal was also justified in ordering payment of salary to the respondent for the post of Junior Engineer-I with effect from 1990 when he was made to work on that post. It is true that the respondent, to begin with, was promoted in stop-gap arrangement as Junior Engineer-I but that by itself would make no difference to his claim of salary for that post. If a person is put to officiate on a higher post with greater responsibilities, he is normally entitled to salary of that post. The Tribunal has noticed that the respondent has been working on the post of Junior Engineer-I since 1990 and promotion for such a long period of time cannot be treated to be a stop-gap arrangement. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on ShreedaranChandra Ghosh vs. State of Assam & Ors. (1996) 10 SCC 567 , as also on State of Haryana vs. S.M. Sharma & Ors., JT 1993 (3) SC 740, to contend that since the respondent was promoted on the basis of stop-gap arrangement, he could not claim promotion as a matter of right nor could be claim salary for the post of Junior Engineer-I as he was given only current duty charge of the post. Both the contentions cannot be accepted. The Tribunal has already held that the respondent having been promoted as Junior Engineer-I, though in stop-gap arrangement, was continued on that post, and therefore, he has a right to be considered for regular promotion. Having regard to the facts of this case, there is no reason to differ with the Tribunal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant attempted to contend that when the respondent was promoted in stop-gap arrangement as Junior Engineer-I, he had given an undertaking to the appellant that on the basis of stop-gap arrangement, he would not claim promotion as of right nor would he claim any benefit pertaining to that post. The argument, to say the least, is preposterous. 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. The argument, to say the least, is preposterous. 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. The respondent being an employee of the appellant had to break his period of stagnation although, as we have found earlier, he was the only person amongst the non-diploma holders available for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer-I and was, therefore, likely to be considered for promotion in his own right. An agreement that if a person is promoted to the higher post or put to officiate on that post or, as in 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." 11. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court has also been considered by one of us (N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR,J) in N.RAJASEKARAN NAIR V. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND WATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE AND ANOTHER ( (2006) 2 M.L.J. 420 . The said judgment was again followed in T.THANGARAJ V. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-9 AND ANOTHER ((2011) 2 Current Writ Cases 610. 12. When a question was put to the learned Special Government Pleader as to whether the judgments referred to above have become final, it has been fairly submitted that the said decisions have become final. Be that as it may, the said decisions have been rendered by applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court referred supra. It is also pertinent to note that this Court has also considered another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court. The following passages in the aforesaid judgment are apposite. "9. In the decision reported in SelvarajV. Lt. It is also pertinent to note that this Court has also considered another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court. The following passages in the aforesaid judgment are apposite. "9. In the decision reported in SelvarajV. Lt. Governor of Island, Port Blair, (1998) 4 S.C.C. 291 , in paras.3 and 4 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the pay of higher post if admissible when an employee is looking after duties of that post, the employee is entitled to get the higher post pay even though the said post is not to be treated as promotion. 10. In the other judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner which is reported in JaswantSingh V. Pubjab Poultry Field Staff Association, (2002) 1 S.C.C. 261 , the Supreme Court held that even if a person promoted is not qualified to hold the post, but discharged the duties in the promotion post, he is entitled to get the pay and allowances admissible to the promotion post. 11. The above referred judgments of the Supreme Court are followed by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Union of India V. Central Administrative Tribunal, (2004) 1 A.T.J. 24." 13. Hence, in view of the above mentioned settled position of law and in the light of the discussions made above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.