Judgment : N.Paul Vasantha kumar, C.J. 1. This appeal is filed against the order made in SWP No.769/2001 dated 31.07.2002. The grievance of the 1st respondent before the learned Single Judge was that even though he was placed at serial No.15 and respondent No.2 herein was placed at serial No.21 and the 2nd respondent despite being junior to the writ petitioner-1st respondent herein, was given the assignment of Junior Engineer with higher pay scale and the writ petitioner was not given promotion. The second grievance of the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that even though he was working substantively against the post of Work Supervisor and he being asked to perform the duties of the post of Junior Engineer, he is entitled to get pay for that post. 2. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition considering the said two facts. 3. During pendency of the appeal, the government has passed an order on 27.04.2010 reviewing the promotions given to the unqualified persons and cancelled the promotions of unqualified persons including that of the 4th respondent in the writ petition. Hence the writ petitioner contended that he should have been promoted. 4. And at last he is entitled to get the salary of the post in which he was put incharge on the principle of equal pay for equal work?. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following decisions:- (a) In (1998) 4 SCC 291 ( Selvaraj v. Lt. Governor of Island, Portblair and ors) the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the very issue. In paragraph no. 3 it is held thus:- 3. It is not in dispute that the appellant looked after the duties of Secretary (Scouts) from the date of the order and his salary was to be drawn against the post of Secretary (Scouts) under GFR 77. Still he was not paid the said salary for the work done by him as Secretary (Scouts). It is of course true that the appellant was not regularly promoted to the said post. It is also true as stated in the counter-affidavit of Deputy Resident Commissioner, Andaman & Nicobar Administration that the appellant was regularly posted in the pay scale of Rs 1200-2040 and he was asked to look after the duties of Secretary (Scouts) as per the order aforesaid. It is also true as stated in the counter-affidavit of Deputy Resident Commissioner, Andaman & Nicobar Administration that the appellant was regularly posted in the pay scale of Rs 1200-2040 and he was asked to look after the duties of Secretary (Scouts) as per the order aforesaid. It is also true that had this arrangement not been done, he would have to be transferred to the interior islands where the post of PST was available, but the appellant was keen to stay in Port Blair as averred in the said counter. However, in our view, these averments in the counter will not change the real position. Fact remains that the appellant has worked on the higher post though temporarily and in an officiating capacity pursuant to the aforesaid order and his salary was to be drawn during that time against the post of Secretary (Scouts). It is also not in dispute that the salary attached to the post of Secretary (Scouts) was in the pay scale of 1640-2900. Consequently, on the principle of quantum meruit the respondents authorities should have paid the appellant as per the emoluments available in the aforesaid higher pay scale during the time he actually worked on the said post of Secretary (Scouts) though in an officiating capacity and not as a regular promotee. This limited relief is required to be given to the appellant only on this ground. (b) In (2001) 8 SCC 322 ( Dwarika Prasad Tiwari v. M. P. State Road Transport Corporation and another) Hon’ble the Supreme Court held that period for which the appellants discharged the duties or discharging the duties attached to a higher post, they should be paid emoluments as attached to that post. (c) In JT 2001 (9) SC 646 = (2002) 1 SCC 261 ( Jaswant Singh v. Punjab Poultry Field Staff Association and ors), in paragraph nos. 11 and 12, Hon’ble the Supreme Court held thus:- 11. The High Courts decision in Gobind Singhs case did not direct the promotion of Gobind Singh. 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. 11 and 12, Hon’ble the Supreme Court held thus:- 11. The High Courts decision in Gobind Singhs case did not direct the promotion of Gobind Singh. 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 appellants 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. 12. We accordingly allow the appeal in part. While upholding the order of the High Court, setting aside the order of the appellants promotion, we direct the respondent authorities to pay the appellant for the period he rendered service as a chick-sexer at the scales of pay together with all allowances to which chick-sexers were entitled at the relevant time (d) In AIR 2015 SC 696 ( State of Punjab and ors v. Rafiq Masih) Hon’ble the Supreme Court set aside the recovery order by applying the principle that a person having been allowed to serve in a higher post is entitled to get salary for that post. In paragraph 11 it is held thus:- that the employees were entitled to wages, for the post against which they had discharged their duties. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion, that it would be iniquitous and arbitrary for an employer to require an employee to refund the wages of a higher post, against which he had wrongfully been permitted to work, though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post 5. In the light of the above decisions, this Appeal is dismissed with a direction to the appellants to verify the period in which the writ petitioner-1st respondent was asked to perform the duties of the Junior Engineer and for that period salary payable to the Junior Engineer shall be paid to the 1st respondent. Said exercise is directed to be completed by the appellants within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.