ORDER M. Sathyanarayanan, J. 1. The official respondents in O.A.Nos.667 and 812 of 2011 are the writ petitioners. 2. The second respondent in each of the writ petitions filed the above Original Applications on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, praying for quashment of the orders relating to overpayment and recovery of the same, insofar as they are concerned. 3. The facts of the case would disclose that the applicant in O.A.No.667 of 2011 was initially appointed as Substitute Bungalow Lascar in the office of the Southern Railway and subsequently posted as Office Peon/Lascar and later on, regularly posted during 1984. Subsequently, he was transferred to Metropolitan Transport Project (Railway) (hereinafter referred to as "MTP-R) vide order dated 1.2.1984 and later on, got promoted as Junior Clerk and his pay was re-fixed as per the Fourth Pay Commission's Recommendations and again, he was promoted as Senior Clerk in MTP-R from 1990. The said applicant was promoted as Jamadar Peon on regular basis in the Southern Railways with effect from 1.4.1995 and he was ordered to be retained in the office of the MTP-R. 4. The applicant in O.A.No.812 of 2011 was initially appointed as ELR Driver during 1984 in MTP-R and subsequently got appointed as Temporary Gangman in the office of the Southern Railway. The third respondent, vide communication dated 30.4.2001, informed him that due to exigency of the work for the project, his services was utilized as Driver, which resulted in multiple adhoc promotions and the stand of the Department is that the same was against the Railway Board Directions. 5. A proposal was mooted out to revert him and consequent to the representation given by him, the said proposal was dropped and he was continuing in the higher grade. 6. The stand of the Department is that the project work in MTP-R is target oriented and staffs are being drawn from various Zonal Railways through selection process and the said posts are work charged posts, which are created based on budget need and the staff requirement was adjusted within the organization, commensurate with the exigencies, resulting in adhoc promotions. 7. The stand of the Department is that the project work in MTP-R is target oriented and staffs are being drawn from various Zonal Railways through selection process and the said posts are work charged posts, which are created based on budget need and the staff requirement was adjusted within the organization, commensurate with the exigencies, resulting in adhoc promotions. 7. To the shock and surprise of the applicants, their pay got reduced in December, 2003 onwards, without notice and the applicant in O.A.No.667 of 2011 was designated as Junior Clerk in the pay slip of December, 2008 and the applicant in O.A.No.812 of 2011 was shown as Senior Driver III in the pay slip from December, 2008, which amounted to reversion. The applicants aggrieved by the same, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.Nos.43 and 108 of 2009 respectively and interim orders were also granted restraining the respondents from reducing the pay and finally, both the Original Applications got disposed of, by directing the respondents to issue show cause notice before taking final decision with regard to reduction of pay. 8. The third respondent/MTP-R in compliance of the above said orders, passed an order on 27.7.2010, informing them that the overpayment was made for the period between July, 2007 and June, 2010 and in response to the same, the applicants had submitted their reply stating among other things that they continued the work in the said post and also shouldered higher responsibility and therefore, the payment effected for the work done by them cannot be treated as overpayment. However, the third respondent has passed an order dated 4.5.2011, informing the applicants that an amount of Rs.1,32,774/- and Rs.1,08,189/- respectively, would be recovered from their salary in monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.3,000/- from the month of May, 2011 onwards and challenging the vires of the same, the above said applications were filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 9. The official respondents had filed their reply and took a stand that the adhoc promotions given to the applicants were not continued beyond 2007 and taking into consideration the representations received from the trade unions, the recovery should not be effected and the matter was referred to the second respondent and he has not agreed with the same and therefore, action was taken to recover the overpayment made. The official respondents also took a stand that the promotion was given only on adhoc basis and further payment was made erroneously and hence the recovery was rightly ordered and prayed for dismissal of the Original Applications. 10. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the materials placed before it, formulated a question as to whether the overpayment made to the applicants for the period June-July, 2007 to 2010 is correct or not and after going through the contentions of the applicants and the reply filed by the official respondents, found that though a specific contention is made by the official respondents that the adhoc promotions were not extended beyond 2007, the applicants cannot be held responsible. 11. The Tribunal had also found that even though in the reply filed by the official respondents, the fact that the applicants have discharged the duties and responsibilities of the higher posts and in the light of the facts and circumstances, found that the case of the applicants merits acceptance, allowed the original applications, quashing the impugned orders and aggrieved by the same, the official respondents have filed these writ petitions. 12. Mr.A.P.Srinivas, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/official respondents in the original applications would contend that admittedly there was no sanction of post beyond 2007 and due to inadvertence, the overpayment was made beyond that period and taking into consideration of the fact only, the order of recovery has been effected and that too in monthly instalments, so as to mitigate hardship caused to the original applicants. It is further contended that the second respondent in each of the writ petitions/original applicants are also very well aware that their promotions are purely adhoc in nature and the said promotions cannot continue beyond 2007 and therefore, it is not open to them to contend that the payment made cannot be recovered. 13. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also perused the materials filed in the form of typed set of papers. 14. No doubt, beyond 2007, the adhoc promotions have not continued. 13. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also perused the materials filed in the form of typed set of papers. 14. No doubt, beyond 2007, the adhoc promotions have not continued. But, the fact remains that the second respondent in each of the writ petitions had discharged their duties and responsibilities in the higher posts, and the official respondents have also extracted work from them and simply because the adhoc promotions beyond 2007 were not sanctioned, it cannot be said that they are not entitled to pay and the fact remains that the second respondent in each of the writ petitions/applicants had discharged their duties and responsibilities in the higher posts, which they have continued to hold beyond 2007. Therefore, it cannot be construed as overpayment and that the original applicants cannot be held responsible for the same. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that due to inadvertence, a mistake has crept in and the department cannot be held responsible. 15. The issue as to whether a person served in a promoted/higher post, is entitled to get salary and other allowances for that post was considered by the Supreme Court in the decisions reported in (2002) 1 SCC 261 (JASWANT SINGH V. PUNJAB POULTRY FIELD STAFF ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS) and (2013) 4 SCC 152 (UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS V. ANIL KUMAR SARKAR). The said judgments were followed in the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court (in which one of us N.P.V.,J. is a party) reported in 2013 (7) MLJ 257 (UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS V. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS BENCH AND ANOTHER). In paragraphs 2 and 3, it is held thus: “2..... the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in Jaswant Singh V. Punjab Poultry Field Staff Association and Ors. AIR 2002 SC 231 : (2002) 1 SCC 261 : JT 2001 (9) SC 646. In Para 11 of the said decision, it is held thus:- “(11) ... What was directed was the payment of salary and allowances of the post of chick-sexer since Gobind Singh had been discharging the duties of that post. AIR 2002 SC 231 : (2002) 1 SCC 261 : JT 2001 (9) SC 646. In Para 11 of the said decision, it is held thus:- “(11) ... What was directed was the payment of salary and allowances of the post of chick-sexer since Gobind Singh had been discharging the duties of that post. Therefore, while the appellant's promotion to the post of chick-sexer cannot be upheld, given the fact that the appellant had discharged the duties of a chick-sexer, he was at least entitled to the pay and other allowances attributable to that post during the period he carried out such duties”. 3. In the decision reported in Union of India and Others v. Anil Kumar Sarkar (2013) 4 SCC 152 : in paragraphs 13 and 14, it is held thus:- “(13)... we find that although the appellants were recruited as ACDPOS, the State Government transferred and posted them to work as CDPOs in ICDS Projects. If this would have been a stopgap arrangement for few months or the appellants had been given additional charge of the posts of CDPO for a fixed period, they could not have legitimately claimed salary in the scale of the higher post i.e. CDPO. However, the fact of the matter is that as on the date of filing of the original application before the Tribunal, the appellants had continuously worked as CDPOs for almost 4 years and as on the date of filing of the writ petition, they had worked on the higher post for about 6 years. By now, they have worked as CDPOs for almost 14 years and discharged the duties of the higher post. It is neither the pleaded case of the respondents nor has any material been produced before this Court to show that the appellants have not been discharging the duties of the post of CDPO or the degree of their responsibility is different from other CDPOs. Rather, they have tacitly admitted that the appellants are working as full-fledged CDPOs since July 1999. Therefore, there is no legal or other justification for denying them salary and allowances of the post of CDPO on the pretext that they have not been promoted in accordance with the rules. The convening of the promotion Committee or taking other steps for filling up the post of CDPO by promotion is not in the control of the appellants. Therefore, there is no legal or other justification for denying them salary and allowances of the post of CDPO on the pretext that they have not been promoted in accordance with the rules. The convening of the promotion Committee or taking other steps for filling up the post of CDPO by promotion is not in the control of the appellants. Therefore, they cannot be penalised for the Government's failure to undertake the exercise of making regular promotions. (14) In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order as also the one passed by the Tribunal are set aside and the respondents are directed to pay salary and allowances to the appellants in the pay scale of the post of CDPO with effect from the date they took charge of those posts. This exercise must be completed within eight weeks from today. The arrears shall be paid to the appellants within a period of nine months.” Thus, it is evident that if a government servant is given higher post, if he discharged the duties of the higher post otherwise than incharge basis, salary to the higher post shall be paid for the period he served in the higher post.” Thus it is evident that as long as a person served in the higher post and discharged duty in that post and also retired from service, that person should be paid salary and allowances payable to the promoted/higher post on the principle of equal pay for equal work. 16. The fact remains that the second respondent in each of the writ petitions had discharged their duties and responsibilities in the higher posts beyond 2007 and consequently they are entitled to get the equal pay for equal work and in the light of the said reasons, this Court is of the view that the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 17. In the result, these writ petitions are dismissed, confirming the orders made in O.A.Nos.667 and 812 of 2011, dated 16.7.2013. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.