JUDGMENT : Nishita Mhatre, J. 1. Anil Kumar Das, the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent’) was employed with the Farakka Barrage Project as an Assistant Executive Engineer from 1995. He was transferred and posted to the post of Executive Engineer, Anti-Erosion Division, Farakka Barrage on 22nd December, 1995. This duty was in addition to his work as an Assistant Executive Engineer. He assumed charge of the post of Executive Engineer on 28th December, 1995. Since the respondent was discharging the duties of an Executive Engineer, he claimed the salary of an Executive Engineer. His representation however went unheeded. The respondent filed OA 870 of 1998 before the Administrative Tribunal seeking the benefit of pay and allowances for holding the additional charge of the post of Executive Engineer. That application was disposed of on 4th August, 1999 and the petitioner was directed to reconsider the case of the respondent, A speaking order was passed on 8th December, 1999 rejecting the respondent’s claim. After retiring on attaining the age of superannuation on 31st August, 2000 the respondent filed another application before the Tribunal being OA 581 of 2001 challenging the speaking order and claimed the benefit payable for the additional charge held by him of the post of Executive Engineer. 2. The petitioner filed a reply and contested the application filed by the respondent on the ground that the respondent had merely been asked to look after the work of the Executive Engineer but had not formally been appointed as an Executive Engineer. It was therefore contended that in view of the provisions of Fundamental Rules 49 and several Government orders issued in that regard, the respondent was not entitled to any benefit attached to the post of Executive Engineer. 3. The Tribunal, after considering the observations made while deciding OA 870 of 1998 and the provisions of F.R. 49, held that the respondent could not be deprived of the benefit of pay in the higher scale only because no formal order appointing him as an Executive Engineer had been issued. The Tribunal directed the petitioner to re-fix the pay and pension of the respondent. Arrears were directed to be paid within three months of the order. This Court had by its order dated 5th March, 2003 stayed the operation of the impugned order. 4. Mr. The Tribunal directed the petitioner to re-fix the pay and pension of the respondent. Arrears were directed to be paid within three months of the order. This Court had by its order dated 5th March, 2003 stayed the operation of the impugned order. 4. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Roy, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has relied on the provisions of F.R. 49 in support of his contention that since the petitioner was not appointed in an officiating capacity, he was not entitled to the salary of the promotional post. The learned Counsel urged that in view of F.R. 35, the maximum that an employee who was asked to officiate in the post would be entitled to is Rs. 1000/-. Therefore, according to him the respondent has erroneously been granted all the benefits of the Executive Engineer by the Administrative Tribunal. 5. It would be necessary to bear in mind certain factual details of the present case. As mentioned earlier the respondent joined service as an Assistant Executive Engineer in 1995. Soon thereafter an order was issued transferring and posting him in public interest and other persons named in the office order dated 22nd December, 1995. The respondent was directed to look after the charge of Anti-Erosion Division in addition to his own duties as Assistant Executive Engineer. An order was issued on 22nd January, 1996 in terms of Rule 14 of the Delegation of Financial Power Rules, 1978 declaring the respondent Assistant Executive Engineer as head of the office of Anti-Erosion Division with effect from 28th December, 1995 till further orders. He was also directed to function as the controlling officer for the purposes of TA/LTC etc. in respect of sub-ordinate officers and staff in the division. This order was issued in super-session of an earlier order on 16th January, 1996. On an application made by the respondent for the higher scale of pay attached to the post of Executive Engineer the Superintending Engineer recommended the same to the Petitioner. A similar recommendation was made on 23rd June, 1997 pointing out that the respondent was holding both the offices, of Assistant Executive Engineer and of Executive Engineer and discharging the duties and responsibilities of the Executive Engineer for more than one and half years. 6. As stated earlier the respondent had filed OA 870 of 1998. A similar recommendation was made on 23rd June, 1997 pointing out that the respondent was holding both the offices, of Assistant Executive Engineer and of Executive Engineer and discharging the duties and responsibilities of the Executive Engineer for more than one and half years. 6. As stated earlier the respondent had filed OA 870 of 1998. While remanding the application the Administrative Tribunal took note of the contentions raised by the respondent herein and observed that the plea of the authorities that the respondent was merely directed to perform current duties in addition to his own duties as Assistant Executive Engineer could not be accepted. The Tribunal observed that the respondent’s case had not been properly considered by the authorities and therefore directed them to reconsider the case of the respondent. There was no challenge to this order by the petitioner herein. The observations made by the Tribunal in that order have not been set aside. 7. The petitioner has contended that because of the provisions of F.R. 49 the respondent is not entitled to the higher salary attached to the post of Executive Engineer. F.R. 49 reads as follows:- F.R. 49. The Central Government may appoint a Government servant already holding a post in a substantive or officiating capacity to officiate, as a temporary measure, in one or more of other independent posts at one time under the Government. F.R. 49 reads as follows:- F.R. 49. The Central Government may appoint a Government servant already holding a post in a substantive or officiating capacity to officiate, as a temporary measure, in one or more of other independent posts at one time under the Government. In such cases, his pay is regulated as follows:- (i) Whore a Government servant is formally appointed to hold full charge of the duties of a higher post in the same office as his own and in the same cadre/line of promotion, in addition to his ordinary duties, he shall be allowed the pay admissible to him, if he is appointed to officiate in the higher post, unless the Competent Authority reduces his officiating pay under Rule 35; but no additional pay shall, however, be allowed for performing the duties of a lower post; (ii) Where a Government servant is formally appointed to hold dual charges of two posts in the same cadre in the same office carrying identical scales of pay, no additional pay shall be admissible irrespective of the period of dual charge: Provided that, if the Government servant is appointed to an additional post which carries a special pay, he shall be allowed such special pay; (iii) Where a Government servant is formally appointed to hold charge of another post or posts which is or are not in the same office, or which, though in the same office, is or arc not in the same cadre/line of promotion, he shall be allowed the pay of the higher post, or of the highest post, if he holds charge of more than two posts, in addition to ten per cent of the presumptive pay of the additional post or posts, if the additional charge is held for a period exceeding 45 days but not exceeding 3 months: Provided that if in any particular case, it is considered necessary that the Government servant should hold charge of another post or posts for a period exceeding 3 months, the concurrence of the Department of Personnel and Training shall be obtained for the payment of the additional pay beyond the period of 3 months; (iv) Where an officer is formally appointed to hold full additional charge of another post, the aggregate of pay and additional pay shall in no case exceed Rs. 80,000; (v) No additional pay shall be admissible to a Government servant who is appointed to hold current charge of the routine duties of another post or posts irrespective of the duration of the additional charge; (vi) If compensatory or sumptuary allowances are attached to one or more of the posts, the Government servant shall draw such compensatory or sumptuary allowances as the Central Government may fix: Provided that such allowances shall not exceed the total of the compensatory and sumptuary allowances attached to all the posts. 8. A perusal of the aforesaid F.R. indicates that no additional pay shall be payable to a Government servant who is directed to hold the current charge of routine duties of another post. As mentioned earlier the charge given to the respondent of the additional post was not for merely routine duties. He was appointed as the head of the department and was directed to hold the charge of Executive Engineer. Thus he was holding the full charge of the duties of a higher post in addition to his own post of Assistant Executive Engineer. The petitioner would therefore be entitled to the higher pay scale attached to the post of Executive Engineer. 9. F.R. 35 empowers the Central Government to fix the pay of an officiating Government servant at an amount less than that admissible under the rules. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent would be entitled to this restricted additional amount. This submission is untenable. The material on record amply demonstrates that the respondent was in fact holding the charge of the head of the department and was required to function as such besides working as an Assistant Executive Engineer. It is true that no formal order appointing him on an officiating post was issued by the petitioner. However, this cannot deprive the respondent from his just dues. Having worked as an Executive Engineer holding full charge of the post, obviously the respondent would be entitled to the scale of pay attached to that post. 10. We do not find that the Tribunal has erred in allowing the Original Application. The submissions of Mr. Roy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, do not commend to us. The petition is therefore dismissed. 10. We do not find that the Tribunal has erred in allowing the Original Application. The submissions of Mr. Roy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, do not commend to us. The petition is therefore dismissed. All arrears payable as per the impugned judgment of the Tribunal shall be paid to the respondent within three months from today with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. The respondent’s pension shall also be revised accordingly. 11. Urgent certified photocopies of the is judgment, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates for the parties upon compliance of all formalities.