JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J. 1. The State is aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.08.2017 passed by the Writ Court in W.P. (S) No. 7061 of 2013 allowing the claim of the writ petitioner (respondent herein) for grant of pay scale attached to the post of Public Prosecutor. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as they are before the Writ Court. 3. The writ petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor by the undivided State of Bihar on 02.12.1984. On 22.08.1997, he was granted 1 st Time Bound Promotion. 4. On 15.11.2000, the cadre of the writ petitioner was allocated to the State of Jharkhand after its bifurcation from the erstwhile State of Bihar. 5. The petitioner was posted as Assistant Public Prosecutor, Saraikela and thereafter he was transferred vide notification dated 11.03.2008 and posted at Jamshedpur, where, in addition to his work of Assistant Public Prosecutor, he was also directed to discharge the duties of In-charge Public Prosecutor in the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur. However, in the said notification, it was stipulated inter alia that claim of seniority and senior pay scale would not be admissible to the petitioner. 6. On 09.04.2008, 22 posts of Public Prosecutors, 110 posts of Additional Public Prosecutors and 31 posts of Assistant Public Prosecutors were created. In addition, 209 posts of Additional Public Prosecutors were allocated to the State of Jharkhand after bifurcation of the State of Bihar. 7. On 27.06.2009, the petitioner was granted the 1 st Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) and subsequently, vide letter dated 25.05.2010, he was granted 2 nd ACP. 8. The Jharkhand Abhiyojan Seva Niyamawali, 2011 was promulgated on 27.08.2011, wherein, in Rule 6, it was provided that Assistant Public Prosecutors would be appointed by way of direct recruitment and the posts of Additional Public Prosecutors and Public Prosecutors would be filled up by way of promotion. Additional Public Prosecutors were to be promoted on the basis of seniority-cum merit and the Public Prosecutors were to be promoted on the basis of seniority. 9. On 16.01.2012, the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, determined the minimum eligibility period (Kalawadhi) for promotion from one pay scale for promotion on the basis of grade pay. 10. Additional Public Prosecutor had Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- in Pay Band of Rs.15600–39100/-. 9. On 16.01.2012, the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, determined the minimum eligibility period (Kalawadhi) for promotion from one pay scale for promotion on the basis of grade pay. 10. Additional Public Prosecutor had Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- in Pay Band of Rs.15600–39100/-. The Pay Band of the petitioner in the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor was Rs.9300–34800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- and, thus, as per Circular dated 16.01.2012, minimum eligibility period of 06 years was prescribed for promotion to the post of Additional Public Prosecutor. 11. Further, the post of Public Prosecutor was having Grade Pay of Rs.7600/- in Pay Band of Rs.15600–39100/- and as per Circular dated 16.01.2012, Kalawadhi for 05 years was prescribed for promotion to the said post from Additional Public Prosecutor. 12. The petitioner was promoted with effect from 08.09.2012 to the post of Additional Public Prosecutor in the Pay Band of Rs.15600–39100/- with Grade Pay of Rs.7600/-. 13. On 28.02.2014 the petitioner superannuated from service. 14. All the aforesaid facts were not disputed before the Writ Court, where the petitioner had approached by way of writ petition claiming inter alia the following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction particular a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the notification dated 11.3.2008, communicated vide Memo No.946 (Annexure-1 to the writ application) to the extent it prescribes therein that the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim salary of the post on which he has been directed to office. (ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction including Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to immediately and forthwith grant pay scale attached to the post of Public Prosecutor in view of Rule 58 and 103 of JHARKHAND SERVICE CODE which provides that a government servant appointed by the State Government to hold substantially or as a temporary measure or to officiate in two or more than independent posts at one time, shall be entitled for the higher pay to which he would be entitled if his appointment to one of the post stood along, may be drawn on account of tenure. 15. 15. Learned Writ Court after concluding that the duty performed by Assistant Public Prosecutor was not in any manner different to those performed by Public Prosecutor, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the grant of pay scale attached to the post of Public Prosecutors, despite the conditions imposed by the respondents to the effect that the petitioner is not entitled to the pay scale or seniority of the said post. 16. The Writ Court further relied upon Rules 58 and 103 of the JHARKHAND SERVICE CODE , which inter alia provides that a government servant appointed by the State Government to hold substantially or as a temporary measure or to officiate in two or more independent posts at one time, shall be entitled for the highest pay to which he would be entitled, if his appointment to one of the posts stood alone, may be drawn on account of his tenure of that post. 17. It is vehemently argued by Sri Jai Prakash, learned Additional Advocate General-IA, that once the notification dated 11.03.2008 clearly lays down a condition that the petitioner shall not claim seniority and/or pay scale of the higher post, then the writ petitioner would not be entitled to claim any benefit including higher salary and would continue to draw the salary in the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor. Strong reliance in support of his contention is placed on a Two-Judge Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A. Francis v. Management of Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, Tamil Nadu , (2014) 13 SCC 283 , more particularly paragraph 6 thereof which reads as under:- “6. The order dated 28-2-2001, by which the appellant was allowed to discharge duties in the post of Assistant Manager had made it clear that the appellant would not be entitled to claim any benefit therefrom including higher salary and further that he would continue to draw his salary in the post of Assistant Labour Welfare Officer. If the above was an express term of the order allowing him to discharge duties in the higher post, it is difficult to see as to how the said condition can be overlooked or ignored. The decision of this Court in Secy.-cum-Chief Engineer [ (1998) 5 SCC 87 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1273] was rendered in a situation where the incumbent was promoted on ad hoc basis to the higher post. The decision of this Court in Secy.-cum-Chief Engineer [ (1998) 5 SCC 87 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1273] was rendered in a situation where the incumbent was promoted on ad hoc basis to the higher post. The aforesaid decision is also distinguishable inasmuch as there was no specific condition in the promotion order which debarred the incumbent from the salary of the higher post. Such a condition was incorporated in an undertaking taken from the employee which was held by this Court to be contrary to public policy.” 18. However, we find no merit in such contentions as the aforesaid judgment in A. Francis (supra) has subsequently been distinguished in the judgment rendered by Three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Another v. Dharam Pal , (2017) 9 SCC 395 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the judgment rendered in A. Francis (supra) rests on its own facts and it was further held that simply by an incorporation in the order or merely by giving an undertaking in all circumstances would not debar an employee to claim the benefits of the officiating position. It shall be apt to reproduce paragraph 22 of the said judgment which reads as under:- “22. In the instant case, the Rules do not prohibit grant of pay scale. The decision of the High Court granting the benefit gets support from the principles laid down in P. Grover [P. Grover v. State of Haryana, (1983) 4 SCC 291 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 525 : AIR 1983 SC 1060 ] and Hari Om Sharma [Secy.-cum-Chief Engineer v. Hari Om Sharma, (1998) 5 SCC 87 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1273] . As far as the authority in A. Francis [A. Francis v. Metropolitan Transport Corpn. Ltd., (2014) 13 SCC 283 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 376] is concerned, we would like to observe that the said case has to rest on its own facts. We may clearly state that by an incorporation in the order or merely by giving an undertaking in all circumstances would not debar an employee to claim the benefits of the officiating position. We may clearly state that by an incorporation in the order or merely by giving an undertaking in all circumstances would not debar an employee to claim the benefits of the officiating position. We are disposed to think that the controversy is covered by the ratio laid down in Hari Om Sharma [Secy.-cum-Chief Engineer v. Hari Om Sharma, (1998) 5 SCC 87 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1273] and resultantly we hold that the view expressed by the High Court is absolutely impeccable.” 19. Similar issue again came up before the Three-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. B.K. Dhir, (2017) 9 SCC 337 , where a question arose whether the respondent therein was entitled to salary of the posts of Joint Director and Additional Director, on which posts he has been discharging the duties while working as a Deputy Director. The Hon’ble Supreme Court relying upon the ratio of the judgment of Dharam Pal’s case (supra), more particularly paragraph 22 thereof as reproduced hereinabove, dismissed the appeal preferred by the State of Punjab affirming the judgment passed by the Division Bench of Punjab & Harayan High Court in L.P.A. No. 198 of 2003, wherein the Division Bench after placing reliance on a judgment in Pritam Singh Dhaliwal v. State of Punjab , 2004 SCC OnLine P&H 1428, held as follows:- “Having thoughtfully considered the rival contentions, we find merit in the prayer of the appellant and are of the view that his case is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment in Pritam Singh Dhaliwal case [ Pritam Singh Dhaliwal v. State of Punjab , 2004 SCC OnLine P&H 1428 : (2004) 4 RSJ 599]. It was not a case where the appellant had laid a claim to promotion on the basis of the officiating status conferred on him, but had prayed only for the pay which was admissible to incumbents working on the said posts and performing similar duties. Resultantly, therefore, if the respondents had extracted work from him as Joint Director and Additional Director, he would certainly be entitled to pay as is admissible to the regular incumbents working on the said posts, regardless of any condition that may have been sought to be imposed upon him.” 20. The issue in question is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments and lots of earlier judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 21. The issue in question is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments and lots of earlier judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussions and for the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear the costs. 22. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.