ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ application is non-payment of salary admissible to the Headmaster from the date the promotion of the petitioners was made effective. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were officiating on the post of Headmaster and thereafter, they were granted regular promotion from the date the petitioners were working as officiating Headmasters but monetary relief was confined to the date of issuance of notification, he submits that similarly circumstanced other who have worked as in-charge Headmaster was granted monetary benefit from the date of promotion was made effective. He submits that petitioners are entitled to payment of salary of Headmaster as they have actually discharged the responsibility of the Headmaster and subsequently the respondents have issued notification of promotion of the petitioners as Headmaster. 4. On behalf of the respondents a stand has been taken in para-9 of the counter affidavit that the claim of the petitioners is not tenable since it was not a regular promotion it was simply to fill the gap because of upgradation of primary schools in middle schools. Since petitioners were only allowed to function as Headmaster, they are not entitled to pay scale of Headmaster. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have actually worked as Headmaster for nearly two decades and respondents have not disputed the aforesaid fact. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to pay scale of Headmaster from the date petitioners are regularly discharging the responsibility of the Headmaster, He submits that there is no dispute that on the date when the petitioners were asked to perform the duty as officiating Headmaster. Petitioners were holding the requisite qualification for the post of Headmaster. 6. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to pay scale of Headmaster from the date petitioners are regularly discharging the responsibility of the Headmaster, He submits that there is no dispute that on the date when the petitioners were asked to perform the duty as officiating Headmaster. Petitioners were holding the requisite qualification for the post of Headmaster. 6. Considering the totality of facts situation and the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Arindam Choudhary AIR 2013 SC 1535 the Court is constrained to hold that respondents are under obligation to grant monetary benefit treating the petitioners as Headmasters from the date petitioners were allowed to officiate on the post of Headmaster and petitioners continued on the said post for more than two decades followed by regular promotion from the date of officiation, the respondents are required to work out the entitlement of the petitioners within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.